246 P. 908 (N.M. 1926), 3124, In re Ortiz's Estate

Docket Nº:3124.
Citation:246 P. 908, 31 N.M. 427, 1926 -NMSC- 021
Opinion Judge:PARKER, C.J.
Party Name:In re ORTIZ'S ESTATE. v. ORTIZ. BURCH et al.
Attorney:E. P. Davies and W. N. Birdsall, both of Santa F
Judge Panel:BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.
Case Date:June 08, 1926
Court:Supreme Court of New Mexico

Page 908

246 P. 908 (N.M. 1926)

31 N.M. 427, 1926 -NMSC- 021

In re ORTIZ'S ESTATE.

BURCH et al.

v.

ORTIZ.

No. 3124.

Supreme Court of New Mexico

June 8, 1926

Syllabus by the Court..

The title of an act will be held sufficient, notwithstanding the words used therein are used in a special or limited sense, where, in the sense in which they are employed, they clearly express the subject of the act.

Appeal from District Court, Rio Arriba County; Holloman, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Luis M. Ortiz, deceased. After a petition was filed in the district court and granted, removing the cause from the probate court to the district court for the administration of the estate of the deceased, of which Juan J. Ortiz was executor, from a denial of their motion to remand the cause to the probate court, and for other relief, Mrs. B. O. Burch and others appeal. Affirmed and remanded, with directions.

E. P. Davies and W. N. Birdsall, both of Santa Fé, for appellants.

Renehan & Gilbert, of Santa Fé, for appellee.

PARKER, C.J.

A petition was filed in the district court and granted, removing a cause from the probate court of the county to the district court for administration of an estate. The administration proceeded under the direction of the district court until the appellants appeared in the district court and moved the court to set aside and vacate the order removing the cause to the district court

Page 909

and to set aside all orders subsequently by the district court made in the cause, and moving the court to remand the cause to the probate court. The motion was made upon the theory that chapter 40, of the Session Laws of 1919, is unconstitutional and void. The motion was denied, and the appellants appealed to this court.

The argument put forward that the act is unconstitutional is based upon the proposition that the provisions of the act are not within the title, counsel relying upon section 16, of article 4, of the state Constitution, which provides:

"The subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no bill embracing more than one subject shall be passed except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification or revision of the laws; but if any subject is embraced in any act which is not expressed in its title, only so much of the act as is not so expressed shall be void."

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP