Garcia v. Lucero.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020.,2020. |
| Citation | 22 N.M. 598,166 P. 1178 |
| Parties | GARCIAv.LUCERO. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the provisions of section 2070, Code 1915, it is the duty of the district court in an election contest to accept as true the facts alleged in the notice, and not denied by the contestee in his answer, filed within 20 days, and no proof is required to support such undenied allegations.
Appeal from District Court, Mora County; D. J. Leahy, Judge.
Election contest by Jose Garcia against Juan J. Lucero. Judgment for contestee, and contestant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with direction to enter judgment for the contestant.
Under the provisions of section 2070, Code 1915, it is the duty of the district court in an election contest to accept as true the facts alleged in the notice, and not denied by the contestee in his answer, filed within 20 days, and no proof is required to support such undenied allegations.
W. J. Lucas, of East Las Vegas, for appellant.
Chester A. Hunker, of Las Vegas, for appellee.
Appellant instituted a contest in the district court of Mora county to contest the election of the appellee to the office of school director of school district No. 25, in the county of Mora, this state. His petition was filed within the time required by section 2070, Code 1915, and that the same stated facts sufficient is not questioned. Section 2073, Code 1915, reads as follows:
“The respondent shall file his answer to the notice of contest, and serve a copy thereof on the contestant within twenty days from and after the service of such notice of contest upon him, exclusive of the day of such service; and any material fact alleged in the notice of contest, not specifically denied by the answer, within the time aforesaid, shall be taken and considered as true.”
Appellee filed an answer, which upon motion was stricken. Thereupon appellant asked the court to enter judgment for him upon notice of contest. This the court refused to do, holding that it was incumbent upon appellant to introduce proof to support the allegations of his notice. In view of the language of the statute, this was error. The statute says that:
“Any material fact alleged in the notice of contest not specifically denied by the answer within the time aforesaid, shall be taken and considered as true.”
Where the material facts alleged in the notice of contest are not denied by the answer, it is not incumbent upon the contestant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ostic v. Stephens
...and belief.' Section 56-606, 1941 Comp. This, and related statutes, were before the court in Bull v. Southwick, 2 N.M. 321; Garcia v. Lucero, 22 N.M. 598, 166 P. 1178; Rogers v. Scott, 35 N.M. 446, 300 P. 441; and Wood v. Beals, 29 N.M. 88, 218 P. 354, 355, wherein it was held that the stat......
-
Ratliff v. Wingfield
...We have consistently held that the language is mandatory, requiring strict compliance. Bull v. Southwick, 2 N.M. 321; Garcia v. Lucero, 22 N.M. 598, 166 P. 1178; Rogers v. Scott, 35 N.M. 446, 300 P. 441; and in Wood v. Beals, 29 N.M. 88, 218 P. 354, In Wood v. Beals, supra, we said: 'It has......
-
Hannett v. Mowrer.
...Bull v. Southwick, 2 N. M. 321; Vigil v. Pradt, 5 N. M. 161, 20 P. 795; Gonzales v. Gallegos, 10 N. M. 372, 62 P. 1103; Garcia v. Lucero, 22 N. M. 598, 166 P. 1178; Wood v. Beals, 29 N. M. 89, 218 P. 354; Gallagher v. Linwood, 30 N. M. 211, 231 P. 627, 37 A. L. R. 664; State v. Dist. Court,......
-
SEELE v. SMITH
...and the answer could not thereafter be amended. Bull v. Southwick, 2 N.M. 321; Vigil v. Pradt, 5 N.M. 161, 20 P. 795; Garcia v. Lucero, 22 N.M. 598, 166 P. 1178; Wood v. Beals, 29 N.M. 88, 218 P. 354. The trial began after the time for amendment of the answer had expired. In my opinion the ......