United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third Judicial District court, before FrAnk W. Parker, Associate Justice. A court of equity will not allow the complainant by a supplemental bill to reconstruct entirely the case made by his original bill, by the introduction of an additional case, but the new facts alleged in the supplemental bill, must be such merely as go to support and strengthen the allegations of the original bill.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Third Judicial District court, before FrAnk W. Parker, Associate Justice. A court of equity will not allow the complainant by a supplemental bill to reconstruct entirely the case made by his original bill, by the introduction of an additional case, but the new facts alleged in the supplemental bill, must be such merely as go to support and strengthen the allegations of the original bill. Story’s Equity Pleading, Secs. 333, 336, 339, 616; Higginson v. Chicago R. R. Co., 103 Fed. 197; Electrical Accumulator Co.- v. Brush El. Co. 44 Fed. 603; Tubman v. Wasson Mfg. Co. 44 Fed.…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT.
M’FIE, J.
— A large number of errors are assigned but they may fairly be grouped into four, namely:
1st. The court erred in permitting the supplemental complaint to be filed.
2nd. The court erred in rendering decree upon default of appearance and answer within the time allowed by law.
3rd. The court erred in its order modifying original decree nunc pro tunc.
4th. The court erred in over-ruling motion to vacate said order and decrees and to reopen said cause for the filing of an answer.
1 As to the first objection, it would seem to be a sufficient answer that at the time the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re Keasbey & Mattison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Yonge v. BroxsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Bremen Mining & Milling Co. v. BremenNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1905
- Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. PopeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1896
- Hazleton Tripod-Boiler Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
- State v. HatleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1963
- State Ex Rel. Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- De Baca v. SaisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
- Cornell v. CornellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.