Curbello v. Vaughn
| Decision Date | 06 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 7782,7782 |
| Citation | 76 N.M. 687,417 P.2d 881,1966 NMSC 179 |
| Parties | Iva Lee CURBELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vivian Margarite VAUGHN, Individually and as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Edna Baker Rice, deceased, Belle Rizzuto, Clyde H. Hurley, E. J. Hurley, Emil Hurley and Hazel Thorpe, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
A basic jurisdictional question, not raised by the parties, is presented by the record on appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, the trial court entered its decision which included its findings of fact and conclusions of law. No final judgment was entered therein carrying into effect the decision of the court; however, the appeal is taken from the decision of the court. Clearly, the trial court retains exclusive jurisdiction of the case until the entry of a proper judgment or order.
Appeals will lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the judge and filed in the case, or entered upon the record of the court and signed by the judge. Section 21--2--1(5)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 Comp., Rule 5(1) of the Supreme Court Rules; State v. Morris, 69 N.M. 89, 364 P.2d 348; D. M. Miller & Co. v. Slease, 30 N.M. 469, 238 P. 828. Compare State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 74 N.M. 178, 392 P.2d 12.
There being no final judgment entered, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brannock v. Lotus Fund
...findings of fact and conclusions of law a "final order" for purposes of filing an appeal. See Curbello v. Vaughn, 1966–NMSC–179, ¶¶ 1–3, 76 N.M. 687, 417 P.2d 881 (stating that, when the district court had entered findings and conclusions, but had not entered an order or judgment carrying o......
-
Public Service Co. of N. M. v. Wolf
...of the judgment is premature and, therefore, not timely. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Curbello v. Vaughn, 76 N.M. 687, 417 P.2d 881 (1966); State v. Morris, 69 N.M. 89, 364 P.2d 348 (1961); King v. McElroy, 37 N.M. 238, 21 P.2d 80 (1933); D. M. Miller & Co. v. ......
-
State v. Ratchford
...court had jurisdiction to enter the final, written order on August 3, confirming its earlier oral ruling. See Curbello v. Vaughn, 76 N.M. 687, 687, 417 P.2d 881, 882 (1966) (trial court retains exclusive jurisdiction of a case until entry of a proper judgment or As previously indicated, the......
-
Antillon v. New Mexico State Highway Dept.
...the assumption that the findings and conclusions entered on March 15, 1990, were a final judgment. They were not. See Curbello v. Vaughn, 76 N.M. 687, 417 P.2d 881 (1966). We know of no authority that would prevent the WCJ from amending an order that is not final, and employer has not cited......