Wall v. Gillett, 6058

Decision Date21 June 1956
Docket NumberNo. 6058,6058
Citation1956 NMSC 60,61 N.M. 256,298 P.2d 939
PartiesBetty Jean WALL, Administratrix of the Estate of Sterling H. Wall, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hilton W. GILLETT, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

Mears & Mears, T. E. Mears, Jr., J. Fred Boone, Portales, for appellant.

Heidel & Swarthout, Lovington, Smith & Smith, Esther L. Smith, Clovis, for appellee.

McGHEE, Justice.

The question for decision is whether the 1953 amendment allowing three years for the bringing of suit under our wrongful death statute, Laws 1953, ch. 30, Sec. 1, being Sec. 22-20-2, N.M.S.A.1953, effective June 12, 1953, controls in the case of death occurring in 1952 instead of the one-year period theretofore allowed, N.M.Comp.St.1929, Sec. 36-103.

On August 30, 1952, plaintiff's intestate was injured in an automobile accident and was taken to the office of the defendant in this case, who is a doctor and was practicing in Lovington, New Mexico. The complaint alleges death occurred on September 4, 1952, because of the failure of the defendant to diagnose and treat the patient and instead having him put in jail.

Suit was filed on March 9, 1955; a motion to dismiss on the ground the action was barred by the statute of limitations was sustained and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff (appellant) urges the 1953 amendment protected her cause of action and gave three years from the date of death in which to file suit. Such is the rule under our general limitation statutes, which deal only with remedial procedure; but the limitation provision applicable to actions for wrongful death is not only a limitation on the remedy but also on the right to institute such action, as we have held in Hogsett v. Hanna, 1936, 41 N.M. 22, 63 P.2d 540; State ex rel. De Moss v. District Court, 1951, 55 N.M. 135, 227 P.2d 937; and Natseway v. Jojola, 1952, 56 N.M. 793, 251 P.2d 274.

This is our first case where a change has been made in the limitation provision of our wrongful death statute and a party has claimed the benefit of the change because of a death occurring prior to the effective date of the amendment.

In an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act brought under circumstances identical with this case, that is, where a change had been made in the time within which suit could be brought, Wilson v. New Mexico Lumber & Timber Co., 1938, 42 N.M. 438, 81 P.2d 61, we held the limitation statute in effect at the time of the injury controlled. The claim was barred under the six months' limitation statute in effect at the time of injury, N.M.Comp.St.1929, Sec. 156-113, but would have been timely made if the 1937 Act, Ch. 92, Sec. 7, had governed.

The authorities were thoroughly reviewed in that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Howell v. Burk
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • July 19, 1977
    ...damages . . . shall be brought" is a limitation not only on the remedy, but also on the right to institute an action. Wall v. Gillett, 61 N.M. 256, 298 P.2d 939 (1956). Section 23-1-26 proceeds beyond this concept. It prevents a cause of action from ever arising. An injured party literally ......
  • Lujan v. Regents of University of California, 94-2051
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 8, 1995
    ...has held that the statute "is not only a limitation on the remedy but also on the right to institute such an action." Wall v. Gillett, 61 N.M. 256, 298 P.2d 939, 940 (1956) (citations omitted). See also Perry v. Staver, 81 N.M. 766, 769, 473 P.2d 380, 383 (1970) (suggesting that New Mexico ......
  • Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • May 16, 2014
    ...of a right but limit[ ] or condition[ ] the right itself.” 69 F.3d at 1516–17 (citing Wall v. Gillett, 1956–NMSC–060, ¶ 4, 61 N.M. 256, 298 P.2d 939, 940 ). This analysis is consistent with both the First and Second Restatement approach to choice-of-law analysis. See First Restatement § 605......
  • Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • September 30, 2011
    ...Maez, 98 N.M. 625, 632, 651 P.2d 1269, 1276 (1982). It is a limitation “on the right to institute such an action.” Wall v. Gillett, 61 N.M. 256, 257, 298 P.2d 939, 940 (1956). There is no indication in the statute that the New Mexico Legislature wished the FATA to apply retroactively. See N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT