Lockhart v. Leeds
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before Benjamin S. Baker, Associate Justice. Parties defendant charged with fraud cannot disclaim, but must answer the charges, the plaintiff being entitled to such answer under oath. 1 Daniels Chancery PL & Pr., 788. This suit is brought in time under allegations of fraud against defendants. Compiled Laws N. M’. 1897, sec. 2925. The doctrine of res adjudicaba does not apply in this case. 9 Ency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before Benjamin S. Baker, Associate Justice. Parties defendant charged with fraud cannot disclaim, but must answer the charges, the plaintiff being entitled to such answer under oath. 1 Daniels Chancery PL & Pr., 788. This suit is brought in time under allegations of fraud against defendants. Compiled Laws N. M’. 1897, sec. 2925. The doctrine of res adjudicaba does not apply in this case. 9 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 611, 622; Black on Judgments, sec’s. 610, et seq. The disclaimer fully sets forth the disposition of the interests of the defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT.
McFIE, J.
The question presented by the record in this case, upon the errors assigned, is whether or not the court below erred in giving judgment in favor of the defendants, upon sustaining the demurrers filed to the complaint and amended complaint, and overruling the motion to strike from the files the disclaimer of certain of the defendants. It is insisted on behalf of the plaintiffs, that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers filed by the defendants to the original and amended bills of complaint. The original and amended complaints are not essentially different,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Stone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Case v. BeauregardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Gould v. Evansville & Crawfordsville R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Durant v. Essex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1869
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Young v. VailNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
- Crowson v. CodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Floersheim v. Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Bowers v. BrazellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Williams v. Pacific Royalty Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.