32 N.M. 452 - Hunker v. Veeder

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2007

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 OPINION OP THE COURT

PARKER, C. J.

¶2 A motion to dismiss the appeal in this ease has been filed, based upon various grounds, only one of which need be noticed. Neither a supersedeas bond nor a cost bond has been filed, although the time within which the same was required by chapter 43, Laws of 1917, has long since expired. Under our previous decisions, this is fatal to the appeal. See Abo Land Co. v. Dunlavy, 27 N. M. 202, 199 P. 479; Hernandez v. Roberts, 24 N. M. 253, 173 P. 1034; Hubert v. American Surety Co., 25 N. M. 131, 177 P. 889.

¶3 It appears that appellant was a party to the proceeding below, both individually and as executrix of the will- of Elmer Veeder, deceased, but the appeal was taken and allowed to her in her individual capacity only. This being true, bond was required. Baca v. Winters, 26 N. M. 342, 192 P. 479; In re Henriques, 5 N. M. 169, 21 P. 80.

¶4 It follows that the appeal must be dismissed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ.„ concur.