Laumbach v. Board of County Com'rs of San Miguel County, 5924
Decision Date | 03 November 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 5924,5924 |
Citation | 1955 NMSC 96,60 N.M. 226,290 P.2d 1067 |
Parties | Joyce LAUMBACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, New Mexico, and Vernon E. Lyster, Tobias G. Flores and Felipe Flores, as members thereof, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Howard F. Houk, Santa Fe, for appellant.
Noble, Spiess & Noble, Las Vegas, Jose E. Armijo, Las Vegas, for appellees.
The plaintiff as an appellant before this Court complains of a judgment entered against him in an action pending in the district court of San Miguel County, reading as follows:
It will be noted that the cause was heard upon the pleadings consisting of an order to show cause entered upon the allegations of a verified complaint filed by the plaintiff in which it was charged that an election had been held in a certain area of San Miguel County on March 16, 1954, pursuant to L.1947, c. 196, for purpose of determining whether a portion of San Miguel County should be annexed to Harding County; that certain illegal votes had been cast in Precinct 22 in the area proposed to be annexed by 20 or more persons who were not qualified electors therein which votes were wrongfully and fraudulently counted and tallied by the judges of election and that 4 or more persons who were duly qualified electors therein were denied the right to vote.
Like allegations with respect to the rejection of the ballots of certain qualified electors, 26 or more in number in Precinct 65, were made, the refusal to permit them to vote being predicated on alleged defective registration certificates. It was further alleged that if the ballots of duly qualified voters in Precinct 65 so rejected had been or were, counted, tallied and canvassed as required by law, the result of the election, as upon the face of the return as it appeared to be, would be changed and the proposal to annex a portion of San Miguel to Harding County would have carried by a majority of the qualified electors of the affected area.
Having so alleged in his complaint, the plaintiff prayed:
Upon presentation of the complaint to the court, the trial judge entered an order to show cause, reading, as follows:
In regular course, the defendants, the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County and Vernon E. Lyster, Tobias G. Flores and Felipe Flores, as individual members thereof, duly appeared in response to said order to show cause and filed a pleading entitled "Response to Alternative Writ of Mandamus" consisting of ten separate paragraphs of legal exceptions to the sufficiency of the order to show cause, designated and treated by defendants as an "Alternative Writ of Mandamus," closing their response to the "Order" or "Alternative Writ of Mandamus," whichever we finally shall determine it to be, with this language, immediately preceding the prayer, to wit:
"Subject to the above legal exceptions and objections and without waiving any of them going to the legal insufficiency of the Alternative Writ of Mandamus herein, respondents deny each and every allegation set forth in the Alternative Writ of Mandamus."
The plaintiff, having perfected his appeal, filed a pro forma brief in chief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15, subd. 5, 1953 Comp. Sec. 21-2-1 (15, subd. 5), calling on appellees (defendants) "to specify and maintain the insufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings in the District Court."
In the pro forma brief so filed, the plaintiff assigns two errors, as follows:
(Paragraphs 2 to 10 of legal exceptions, being a mere enumeration of defects in the writ rendering it insufficient as claimed, are omitted).
The defendants having filed their answer brief responding to the "Pro Forma Brief in Chief" of plaintiff (appellant), the latter's counsel filed their brief entitled "Appellant's Answer Brief." It became, in reality, the brief in chief of appellant (plaintiff)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grand Jury Sandoval County, Matter of
...an alternative or peremptory writ, the petition or application is replaced by the writ itself. See Laumbach v. Board of County Comm'rs of San Miguel County, 60 N.M. 226, 290 P.2d 1067 (1955); Schreiber v. Baca, 58 N.M. 766, 276 P.2d 902 (1954); State ex rel. Burg v. City of Albuquerque, 31 ......
-
City of Sunland Park v. PUBLIC REGULATION
... ... was never disbursed, however, because the County obtained an automatic stay on the disbursement ... 698, 954 P.2d 763; Laumbach v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 60 N.M. 226, 232, 290 ... ...
-
State v. 5TH Judicial Nominating Com'n.
... ... an official act by a public officer.'" Laumbach v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of San Miguel County, ... ...
-
Cook v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
... ... FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alan Malott , District Judge Daniel W. Cook ... suit against Cook and other HGroup board members, and named Wells Fargo as an additional ... Cf ... Laumbach v ... Board of County Com'rs of Sam Miguel County ... ...