Hernandez v. Anaya, 6512
Decision Date | 05 June 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 6512,6512 |
Citation | 1959 NMSC 48,340 P.2d 838,66 N.M. 1 |
Parties | Rose HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eusebio ANAYA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
R. F. Deacon Arledge, Charles Driscoll, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Gino J. Matteucci, Albuquerque, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying motion to vacate a default judgment, allegedly void for the reason the complaint failed to state grounds for relief.
The complaint was filed March 15, 1956. It charged the appellant with being the father of an illegitimate child born to appellee on April 17, 1952. It further alleged 'that the defendant has paid small amounts * * * for the support of said minor child but the payments are insufficient.' Appellant was personally served with process but failed to appear or otherwise plead, and the cause was tried in his absence. Appellee's evidence was submitted after which the court adopted the allegations of the complaint as the findings of the court. Judgment was then entered April 27, 1956, decreeing that the appellant was the father of the child, and ordering him to pay to appellee $30 monthly for the support of the child until it attained the age of 16 years.
Appellant received a copy of the judgment, but he failed to comply with its terms. Thereupon, he was ordered to show cause, if any, why he should not be required to make the support payments. At the hearing, the appellant stated to the court that he would not support the child. He was immediately held in contempt and committed to jail.
On July 20, 1956, appellant moved to vacate the judgment and the order holding him in contempt. The essential allegation of the motion reads: 'That the defendant has never acknowledged the paternity of the said child in writing or otherwise, and has not furnished support of the said child, and denies that he is the father of said child.' The motion was denied and the appeal is from the order denying the motion.
The pertinent statute, Sec. 22-4-24, 1953 Compilation, reads:
'Proceedings to enforce the obligation of the father shall not be brought after the lapse of more than two (2) years from the birth of the child, unless paternity has been judicially established, or has been acknowledged by the father in writing or by the furnishing of support.'
The statute, a section of the Uniform Illegitimacy Law, Chapter 32, Laws 1923, Sec. 22-4-1 to Sec. 22-4-27, 1953 Compilation, is a limitation on the right to maintain a suit to establish paternity after the lapse of more than 2 years from the birth of the child unless the statute has been tolled by the conduct of the putative father. The burden is upon a complainant not only to allege but to prove facts tolling the statute. Schuerf v. Fowler, 2 A.D.2d 541, 156 N.Y.S.2d 859; People on Complaint of Mendes v. Pennyfeather, 11 Misc.2d 546, 174 N.Y.S.2d 766; Deckert v. Burns, 75 S.D. 229, 62 N.W.2d 879. Therefore, assuming the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the question is simply whether the money paid by appellant constitutes furnishing of support as contemplated by the statute.
The allegations of the complaint state sufficient facts to toll the statute, or if because of technical niceties of pleading this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Krupke v. Witkowski
...plead and prove one of the exceptions permitting the action to be brought more than two years after the child's birth. Hernandez v. Anaya, 66 N.M. 1, 340 P.2d 838 (1959); People on Complaint of Mendes v. Pennyfeather, 11 Misc.2d 546, 174 N.Y.S.2d 766 (1958); Deckert v. Burns, 75 S.D. 229, 6......
-
Anderson v. Sheffield
...Getz v. Lang, 61 Ill.App.3d 933, 18 Ill.Dec. 934, 378 N.E.2d 398 (1978); Fetch v. Buehner, 200 N.W.2d 258 (N.D.1972); Hernandez v. Anaya, 66 N.M. 1, 340 P.2d 838 (1959); Deckert v. Burns, 75 S.D. 229, 62 N.W.2d 879 (1954); and cases cited at 59 A.L.R. 3rd 685, § Because the statute imposes ......
-
Fetch v. Buehner
...89 (1946); Brown v. Box, 38 Ill.2d 80, 230 N.E.2d 204 (1967); Smith v. Gabrielli, 80 Nev. 390, 395 P.2d 325 (1964); Hernandez v. Anaya, 66 N.M. 1, 340 P.2d 838 (1959); Deckert v. Burns, 75 S.D. 229, 62 N.W.2d 879 (1954); 15 A.L.R.2d 491; 24 A.L.R.2d Many cases support the rule that: 'Where ......
-
Stringer v. Dudoich
...of limitation should be tolled has the burden of alleging sufficient facts that if proven would toll the statute. Hernandez v. Anaya, 66 N.M. 1, 340 P.2d 838 (1959). In the present case the trial court ruled that even if the allegations contained in the complaint and the affidavits submitte......