Legal Opinion

Henning v. Town of Hot Springs

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1939No. 4437PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRICE, Justice.

The question is whether the appellant, Town of Hot Springs, is liable as conditional payor on certain sewer certificates issued by it, as provided by Secs. 90-2301, to 90-2308, inclusive, of N.M.Sts.Ann.1929.

Each of the certificates provide in substance that the Town of Hot Springs, for value received, promises to pay to the bearer $500 at a specified date, with interest at six per cent per annum, and further:

“This certificate shall be payable from money received from special assessments levied to pay for sewer improvements, but any deficiency in the fund-to pay this…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gunnison County Commissioners v. RollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Chaffee County v. PotterSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Sutliff v. Lake County CommissionersSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Lanigan v. Town of GallupNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Varney v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1936

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Office Bldg. Commission v. TrujilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Hamilton Test Systems, Inc. v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985
  3. City of Truth or Consequences v. RobinsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Shoup Voting MacH. Corp. v. Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Munro v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API