Witt v. Cuenod
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal) from a decree for complainants, from the Eifth Judicial District Oourt, Eddy County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. When the parties of their own accord withdraw a cause from the court, and refer it to á tribunal of their own selection, the finding of such tribunal is conclusive as to the facts found, subject alone to impeachment for fraud or to be set aside on account of entire absence of proof.
Read the full summary
Appeal) from a decree for complainants, from the Eifth Judicial District Oourt, Eddy County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. When the parties of their own accord withdraw a cause from the court, and refer it to á tribunal of their own selection, the finding of such tribunal is conclusive as to the facts found, subject alone to impeachment for fraud or to be set aside on account of entire absence of proof. Wiscort v. Dauchy, 3 Dal. 321; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 1J. S. 636; 9 Wall. 125.
1Opinion of the CourtCollieb, J.
Appellees, under the firm name of Witt Brothers, brought in the district.court of Eddy county their bill for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage against appellants as partners doing business under the firm name of L. Eamnez & Co. In addition to an answer, to which replication was filed, appellants filed their cross bill praying for a rescission of the contract upon which the note and mortgage were founded, and for said note and mortgage to be delivered up for cancellation. The cause was referred to an examiner to take the proofs, and report the same to the court. After the testimony taken was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kimberly v. ArmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Chicago, Texas & Mexican Central Railway Co. v. TitteringtonTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Atlantic Delaine Co. v. JamesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Moore v. CrossTexas Supreme Court · 1895
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Telman v. GallesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1936
- Pacific Royalty Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- Pacific Royalty Company, a Corporation v. Carl H. Williams John W. Williams Mrs. John A. Cline, Jr. John A. Cline, Jr. Mrs. F. S. Hollebeke F. S. Hollebeke Paul Eugene Williams, Jr. Lottie May Treas Robert M. Treas Byron Leslie Williams Marvin Lester Williams Ruby Leona Williams Jessie R. Williams Edith Lillian Williams, Single, Who is Incompetent and Who Brings This Suit by Her Next Friend and Carl H. Williams, Johnstone Bates and William Rufus Bates, Cross v. Pacific Royalty Company, a Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955