Cevada v. Miera

• Decision Date: 02 May 1900
• Citation: 10 N.M. 62,61 P. 125
• Parties: CEVADAv.MIERA et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

10 N.M. 62

61 P. 125

CEVADA

v.MIERA et al.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

May 2, 1900.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An assignment of error, such as, “The judgment of the court is contrary to the law,” is too general, and will not be considered by this court.

2. In a suit for damages by one claiming to be the real owner, for the selling of wool taken on attachment from another person, on a writ issued by a justice of the peace, the trial court properly excluded the question, “Was the sale of the wool published in a newspaper for a period of three-four weeks prior to the date of the sale?” as our statutes do not require such publication, nor is it material, as the real question at issue is, did the wool belong to the plaintiff or to some other person? It is not material to the recovery of damages whether or not the forms of law were complied with, as to the sale of the wool attached.

Error to district court, Bernalillo county; before Justice J. W. Crumpacker.

Action by Jose M. Cevada against Epimenio Miera and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The record in this case shows that the principal defendant, Epimenio Miera, was a storekeeper in Bernalillo county, and that in the course of trade he sometimes purchased wool; that Jose Jesus Archibeque purchased on credit from the said Miera goods to the value of $32, and that at the time of said purchase he agreed to turn over to Miera certain wool, which he was going to clip from bucks which he was herding; that on June 10, 1897, the wife of Archibeque went to the store of Miera, and got from his clerk five empty wool sacks, telling him that they were to be used to pack the wool clipped from the bucks, which was to be delivered to Miera; that no charge was made for the sacks, as it was understood that Miera would get them back when the wool was delivered, to him; that the wool was not so delivered, and that on a later day in June the defendant Miera, learning that the wool was being hauled to Albuquerque, sued out a writ of attachment before a justice of the peace of precinct No. 33, Bernalillo county, and levied on 1,069 pounds of wool; that Archibeque was brought before the justice on June 29, 1897, and that he then asked for a continuance until July 17th, which was granted; that, on the 17th of July, Archibeque was twice called, but refused to appear in court, remaining outside; that the plaintiff in error, the son-in-law of Archibeque, was in charge of the wool at the time it was attached, was then examined, and, to use the language of the justice of the peace as disclosed by the record, behaved himself very badly, “trying to belittle the court and the witnesses present there. The court commanded order in the court room, and they took up then with the constable, and they were outside wrangling, and they had a general row there.” The justice of the peace sustained the attachment, and on the 9th day of the following August the wool was sold, as being the property of Archibeque. On September 4, 1897, Jose M. Cevada brought suit against the defendants in error, claiming damages. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court, which found in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff duly excepted, and to reverse said judgment sued out a writ of error.

In a suit for damages by one claiming to be the real owner, for the selling of wool taken on attachment from another person, on a writ issued by a justice of the peace, the trial court properly excluded the question, “Was the sale of the wool published in a newspaper for a period of three-four weeks prior to the date of the sale?” as our statutes do not require...