State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 5747
Decision Date | 24 March 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 5747,5747 |
Citation | 1954 NMSC 28,270 P.2d 708,58 N.M. 296 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. CARDENAS v. SWOPE. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Joseph L. Smith, Lorenzo A. Chavez and Arturo G. Ortega, Albuquerque, for petitioner.
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Mims & Akin, Albequerque, for respondent.
The petitioner invokes the original jurisdiction of this court for the granting of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent to set down for jury trial in Valencia county a workman's compensation case, the claim in such case having been filed in said county, and respondent having granted motion for defendants, the employer and insurer, that jury trial be had upon the cause in Bernalillo county.
By Sec. 26-105, 1941 Comp., it is provided, as at common law, the writ of mandamus shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus our first concern is whether petitioner has such other remedy available. Section 57-916, 1941 Comp., provides, inter alia:
'Any final order made or judgment rendered by the court pursuant to the provisions of this act [Workmen's Compensation Act] (Secs. 57-901-57-931) shall be reviewable by the Supreme Court of the state upon appeal or writ of error in the manner prescribed for other cases except that said cause shall be advanced on the calendar and disposed of as promptly as possible. * * '
But, recognizing he could seek review of the order granting change of venue under this provision, petitioner asserts such remedy will result in great delay and expense if the writ be refused, the case tried to a jury in Bernalillo county, and the final judgment there entered reversed here upon appeal with direction for a new trial before a jury in Valencia county. On the other side, respondent argues petitioner cannot know whether he will be aggrieved by such final judgment entered, and that even if he should be so aggrieved, method of appeal is provided where review could be had, with provision the cause shall be advanced on the appellate calendar and disposed of promptly.
While we recognize there is much to be said for respondent's position, and it is supported by the older authorities, if the change of venue was in fact made without authority, we believe the weight of the argument for the use of the writ in this instance is heavily in favor of petitioner.
As was said in State ex rel. Security State Bank of Waldorf v. District Court, 1921, 150 Minn. 498, 185 N.W. 1019, 1020:
See, also, 35 Am.Jur. (Mandamus) Sec. 271; 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, Sec. 79; Hale v. Barker 1927, 70 Utah 284, 259 P. 928; State ex rel. T. L. Smith Co. v. Superior Court, 1920, 170 Wis. 385, 175 N.W. 927; Head v. Waldrup, 1944, 197 Ga. 500, 29 S.E.2d 561.
We conclude if the nature of the act sought to be compelled lies within the provisions of Sec. 26-104, 1941 Comp., the writ should lie. That section provides:
'It [writ of mandamus] may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; but though it may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, it can not control judicial discretion.'
In support of the granting of the writ of mandamus petitioner relies upon the provisions of Sec. 57-915, 1941 Comp., as amended, Laws 1943, ch. 15, Sec. 1, the pertinent portion of which reads:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The section continues with provision if the claimant elects to file his claim outside the district in which he was injured, a general appearance by all of the defendants in the action shall be considered and treated as a waiver of venue and confer upon the court full and complete jurisdiction in the matter, and concludes with a provision for the giving of notice of the filing of the claim.
In resistance of the writ, respondent relies upon the provisions of Sec. 57-913, 1941 Comp., re-enacted and amended in part, Laws 1953, ch. 145, Sec. 1. After setting forth provision for payment of compensation in installments, notice of injury and filing of claims under the act, the section continues:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sender v. Montoya
...of the litigation which makes it apparent that to refuse the writ 'would result in needless expense and delay' (State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 1954, 58 N.M. 296, 270 P.2d 708), when the final result cannot be otherwise than favorable to petitioner. We said in Flores v. Federici, 1962, 70 ......
-
State ex rel. Maloney v. Neal
...or court to perform an act or duty which is ministerial and does not include the exercise of discretion. State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 58 N.M. 296, 270 P.2d 708 (1954); 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 72 at p. 125. Likewise, mandamus will lie to require a court to perform its judicial duties, but n......
-
Flores v. Federici
...To hold otherwise could lead to palpable absurdity. State ex rel. Martinez v. Holloman, 25 N.M. 117, 177 P.2d 741; State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 58 N.M. 296, 270 P.2d 708; Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988; Farmer v. Loofbourrow, 75 Idaho 88, 267 P.2d......
-
Magee v. Albuquerque Gravel Products Co., 6466
...exceptions as provided in the statutes. Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co., 1942, 46 N.M. 330, 128 P.2d 1044; State ex rel. Cardenas v. Swope, 1954, 58 N.M. 296, 270 P.2d 708; Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 1948, 52 N.M. 93, 192 P.2d 307, Appellant especially relies on our case fo Guthrie v. Thre......