In re Ortiz's Estate.Burch v. Ortiz.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 3124.,3124. |
| Citation | 31 N.M. 427,246 P. 908 |
| Parties | In re ORTIZ'S ESTATE.BURCH et al.v.ORTIZ. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The title of an act will be held sufficient, notwithstanding the words used therein are used in a special or limited sense, where, in the sense in which they are employed, they clearly express the subject of the act.
Appeal from District Court, Rio Arriba County; Holloman, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of Luis M. Ortiz, deceased. After a petition was filed in the district court and granted, removing the cause from the probate court to the district court for the administration of the estate of the deceased, of which Juan J. Ortiz was executor, from a denial of their motion to remand the cause to the probate court, and for other relief, Mrs. B. O. Burch and others appeal. Affirmed and remanded, with directions.
Act providing procedure on appeals from probate court to district court is not unconstitutional because provisions are not within title. Const. art. 4, § 16; Laws 1919, c. 40.
E. P. Davies and W. N. Birdsall, both of Santa Fé, for appellants.
Renehan & Gilbert, of Santa Fé, for appellee.
A petition was filed in the district court and granted, removing a cause from the probate court of the county to the district court for administration of an estate. The administration proceeded under the direction of the district court until the appellants appeared in the district court and moved the court to set aside and vacate the order removing the cause to the district court and to set aside all orders subsequently by the district court made in the cause, and moving the court to remand the cause to the probate court. The motion was made upon the theory that chapter 40, of the Session Laws of 1919, is unconstitutional and void. The motion was denied, and the appellants appealed to this court.
The argument put forward that the act is unconstitutional is based upon the proposition that the provisions of the act are not within the title, counsel relying upon section 16, of article 4, of the state Constitution, which provides:
“The subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no bill embracing more than one subject shall be passed except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification or revision of the laws; but if any subject is embraced in any act which is not expressed in its title, only so much of the act as is not so expressed shall be void.”
The title of chapter 40, Laws 1919, is as follows: “An act providing procedure on appeals from the probate court to the district court.”
Section 1 of the act provides that, when the assets belonging to an estate exceed the sum of $2,000, any person interested in the administration of the estate may at any time during the course of the proceeding in the probate court appeal the administration of the estate to the district court by filing a verified petition in the district court, making certain specified allegations therein. Section 2 provides that, upon the filing of said petition, the district judge may issue an order directed to the clerk of the probate court directing him to forthwith send up all the papers and records in the case, and that thereupon the administration shall be docketed and shall proceed in the district court.
Counsel for appellants argue at length, citing many cases, that, because in the title of this act the word “appeal” is used, the subject of the legislation is not expressed, because in fact the body of the act provides for the removal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ball
...court. Lea County State Bank v. McCaskey Register Co., 39 N.M. 454, 459, 49 P.2d 577, 579-80 (1935); see also In re Ortiz's Estate, 31 N.M. 427, 429, 246 P. 908, 909 (1926). When constitutional language is not defined within the Constitution, resort to the rules of statutory construction is......
-
Mayo v. Polk Co.
... ... contract the implication of these terms within their ... permissible meaning. In re Ortiz's Estate, 31 ... N.M. 427, 246 P. 908; Wright v. Fulton County, 169 ... Ga. 354, 150 S.E. 262; ... ...
-
State v. Nance
...of the intent of the language employed by the legislature rather than the precise definition of the words themselves. See In re Ortiz's Estate, 31 N.M. 427, 246 P. 908; State v. Grissom, 35 N.M. 323, 298 P. 666; State v. Aragon, 55 N.M. 423, 234 P.2d 358. And, in construing a statute, the l......
-
Scott v. Newsom
...when accurately used in law matters means the removal of a cause from the inferior to a superior court. * * *' In Burch et al. v. Ortiz, 31 N.M. 427, 246 P. 908, on the question of interpretation of Sec. 34-422, et seq., 1929 Comp. (now Sec. 16-4-19, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.), a statute authori......