Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 N.M. 309

32 P.2d 257

Roeske v. Lamb

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1934

New Mexico Supreme Court · decided 1934-04-24

Relies on Navajo Live Stock & Trading Co. v. Gallup State Bank · Hannah v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist. · Cornett v. Fulfer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1934-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1966

4 state decisions

201934194019501960decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WATSON, Chief Justice.

¶1 This motion to dismiss the appeal presents the question whether an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint as setting forth no cause of action is appealable.

¶2 Appellant contends that the order is appealable as “such (an) interlocutory order as practically dispose(s) of the merits of the action, so that any further proceeding therein, would be only to carry into effect such interlocutory order N. M. App. Proc. Rule II, § 2.

¶3 It is not easy to answer this contention if we treat the taking of the appeal as an election not to plead further, as we believe we should. The complaint having been adjudged insufficient, and appellant electing to stand upon it, there could be but one further proceeding, viz., a final judgment of dismissal. That judgment would merely carry the order into effect. The merits of the action are practically disposed of by the order.

¶4 In Morrison v. Robinson, 25 N. M. 417, 184 P. 214, the court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment. The court’s attention was not called to the then new provision for appeals from interlocutory orders. The decision is deemed not controlling.

¶5 Cornett v. Fulfer, 26 N. M. 368, 189 P. 1108, is not in point. It is in a class with Winans v. Bryan, 33 N. M. 532, 271 P. 469.

¶6 The motion will be overruled. It is so ordered.

SADLER, HUDSPETH, BICKLEX, and ZINN, JJ., concur.
/38/nm/309 · .json · Public domain