Gallegos v. Ortiz
| Decision Date | 29 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 2690.,2690. |
| Parties | GALLEGOSv.ORTIZ, SHERIFF. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 73, Laws of 1921, which provides that no person, copartnership, or corporation shall engage in or carry on the business of compiling or furnishing abstracts of title to real estate, without first entering into a bond to the state of New Mexico in the sum of $3,000, construed, and held, to be valid.
Statutes, though imperfect in form, should be upheld and sustained by the courts, if they can be so construed as to give sensible effect and to render them of binding force.
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Hickey, Judge.
Application by Acasio Gallegos for writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to Antonio C. Ortiz, Sheriff of Bernalillo County, to obtain release from custody. From an order discharging the writ, applicant appeals. Affirmed.
Statutes, though imperfect in form, should be upheld and sustained by the courts, if they can be so construed as to give sensible effect and to render them of binding force.
W. A. Keleher, of Albuquerque, for appellant.
Ernesto B. Garcia, of Albuquerque, for appellee.
Appellant was found guilty by the justice of the peace of precinct numbered 13, of Bernalillo county, of the offense of engaging in the business of compiling and furnishing abstracts of title to real estate, without first entering into a bond as required by chapter 73, Laws of 1921. He was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Bernalillo county, to be kept and confined in the jail thereof until the fine imposed upon him, and all costs incurred in the prosecution, had been paid.
Thereafter he applied to the district court of that county for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release and discharge from such confinement. After a hearing, the writ was discharged, and the appellant was remanded to the custody of said sheriff until the fine and costs were paid.
[1] The act under which the appellant was convicted is in the following language:
“Section 1. Hereafter no person, copartnership or corporation shall engage in or carry on the business of compiling or furnishing abstracts of title to any real estate within this state without first entering into a bond to the state of New Mexico, for the use and benefit of any person who shall sustain loss or damage by reason of the failure of any such person, copartnership or corporation in the performance of his, their or its duty as such abstracter. Said bond shall be in the penal sum of $3,000.00 with a reliable surety company as surety, conditioned for the faithful performance of his, their or its duties as such abstracter, and shall be filed with and approved by the state corporation commission and which said bond shall be continued in full force and effect during the entire time such person, copartnership or corporation shall engage in the abstract business.
Any person found guilty of violating the provisions of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each of such offense.”
Appellant first contends that this act is invalid because it does not define the duties of an abstracter; it does not limit the time within which the bond shall continue in effect; the conditions of the bond are not adequately provided; it does not provide the time within which the statute of limitations begins to run, nor does it expressly provide who may recover thereon--that is, whether those only who enter into contractual relations with the maker of such abstract, or whether a stranger to the title may recover thereon. We think these contentions are not well founded. The statute forbids any person, copartnership, or corporation from engaging in or carrying on the business of compiling or furnishing abstracts of title to real estate, without first entering into a bond in the penal sum of $3,000. The payee in the bond is specified; the kind of surety to be given is prescribed; the amount of the bond is provided; the conditions of the bond are named; and the person for whose benefit it is given is expressly recited. By the plain terms of the statute the bond shall be made payable to the state of New Mexico. It shall be for the use and benefit of any person who shall sustain loss or damage by reason of the failure of such abstracter or abstract company in the performance of his or its duty as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Polgar
...its predecessors extend abstracters' liability to 'every person . . . acting in faith and reliance upon an abstract.' Gallegos v. Ortiz, 28 N.M. 598, 216 P. 502 (1923). Interestingly, the New Mexico abstracter statute has its own 6 year statute of limitations. New Mex.Stat.Ann. § NEW YORK G......
-
Daniels v. Watson
...is required is language making the statute understandable and sensible, in which event it should be upheld as valid. Gallegos v. Ortiz, 1923, 28 N.M. 598, 216 P. 502. Sec. 73-33-13, subd. B provides as 'The bonds shall be payable semiannually and shall be due and payable serially, either an......
-
Fowler v. Corlett, 5478
...do so. State ex rel. Lucero v. Marron, 17 N.M. 304, 128 P. 485; State ex rel. Sedillo v. Sargent, 24 N.M. 333, 171 P. 790; Gallegos v. Ortiz, 28 N.M. 598, 216 P. 502; Southern Pac. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 41 N.M. 556, 72 P.2d 15; Moruzzi v. Federal Life & Casualty Co., 42 N.M. ......
-
State v. Southern Pac. Co.
...object and purpose, of the act. Fisherdick v. San Juan County Board of Education, 30 N. M. 454, 458, 236 P. 743; Gallegos v. Ortiz, Sheriff, 28 N. M. 598, 216 P. 502; Rapp v. Venable, 15 N. M. 509, 110 P. 834; Baca v. Bernalillo County, 10 N. M. 438, 62 P. 979; Ex parte De Vore, 18 N. M. 24......