{ "id": 11271890, "name": "THE BOABD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SOCORRO COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES F. BLACKINGTON, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Boabd of County Commissioners v. Blackington", "decision_date": "1902-04-25", "docket_number": "No. 927", "first_page": "360", "last_page": "367", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "11 N.M. 360" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "54 N. Y. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 Pac. 126", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Pac. 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "135 U. S. 306", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Mich. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 Mo. App. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 534462 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/18/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Mo. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 982296 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/49/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Col. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Col.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "130 U. S. 1060", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "69 N. Y. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 530629 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/69/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Md. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1808650 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/65/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Wend. (N. Y.) 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2012894 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/10/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2894554 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/117/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 U. S. 514", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Wall. 434", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 1134195 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/80/0434-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 943, "char_count": 11384, "ocr_confidence": 0.399, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.3776877221195043e-08, "percentile": 0.27490811240346447 }, "sha256": "128dc59ca51056149c51b40dd6c2fcb22909de4d79474202dfa342f0854eff96", "simhash": "1:ad419126f93b3511", "word_count": 1961 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:31.770725+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Baker, McFie and Parker, JJ. concur.", "McMillan, A. J., being disqualified, did not participate in tbis opinion." ], "parties": [ "THE BOABD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SOCORRO COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES F. BLACKINGTON, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nMILLS, C. J.\nIt is unusual in any case to1 interfere with the action of the trial court in imposing terms on the party in default as the condition for the vacating of a judgment. \u201cA court, in opening or vacating a judgment, has power to impose upon the applicant, as a condition of the granting of the relief asked such terms as in its discretion it may deem proper, and its action in this respect will not be reviewed or overruled by a higher court, unless it clearly extended the limit of sound legal discretion by imposing terms which are plainly unreasonable or unjust.\u201d 17 Am. and Eng. Encyl. of Law (2 Ed.), p. 847.\nIn the case at bar it is not necessary for us to consider, and we do not decide, whether or not the learned judge below, exercised the limits of a sound legal discretion in imposftig terms that certain statutes limiting indebtedness should not be pleaded by the defendant as the condition for vacating the judgment, for it appears from the record before us, that no final order, judgment or decree has been rendered in this case, and that this writ of error has been sued out from a mere Order vacating a judgment.\ny. at) tttto\u00e1-n sis iRl't\u00ed a -\u00bfuntil) a\u00ab?f)i\u00edf. pij\u00ed\u00edusa.ia.p\u00e1+'\u00edo a\u00edofi srij y> \u00dcSs US al tfie present term of \u00edbi^cpnjt,^^^^^ JTpng Meyer that an appeal only lies from a final judgment 4ior\u00bf?>Ln3'\u00ediv-. \u00edfe\u00bf\u00a1$ t&J\u00cdj.,;scr]htfxrosra ,wQ. _. tr'ict'courfe ofitbe:\u00a1county:, ofi.SeteorroTfor f;u#ben pmoued-ingS. mo sii )o esvi\u00a7 \u00ediuoi) e/I\u00ed a\u00fcoi.\u00edofl daai\na/\u00ed axl\u00edftli&s.app.eililanticfias a-Hya|egalidejfe\u00edise\u00edt(fe1tt)g\u00e9 claim inadd against tt^tt5 oaip^rot\u00e9cf^its'\u00e9lf-\u2019tjy feimedies byMeb \u00edjly\u00ed^ig^e^f\u00edt\u00cd\u00edleMEel\u2019'^\u00e9s.'\u20180,i '!'^ii0jV7 ai sfflGK ; iferil SPsfHOg oj aloat\u00f3o iithbrreie\u00a3> erfi saeiiyf Aims sidiaiev\nTbe writ of error will be diSffiimdx.and^tbejCgusft.rer manded to tbe district court of Socorro county for fur-dbWipbo\u2019e'dedlii\u00a7s]''afi:d!iit's i\u00e9osdt';#d\u00a9i\u00eddd.fn.O\u2018it IfssqcjA\nBaker, McFie and Parker, JJ. concur.\nMcMillan, A. J., being disqualified, did not participate in tbis opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "MILLS, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "George W. Pritchard, District Attorney, and W. E. Kelley, of counsel, for plaintiff in error.", "Catron & Gortner and H. M. Dougherty for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "[No. 927.\nApril 25, 1902.]\nTHE BOABD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SOCORRO COUNTY, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES F. BLACKINGTON, Defendant in Error.\nSYLLABUS.\nAn appeal will not lie from an order of court imposing terms as a condition precedent to the vacating of a judgment, as the same is not a final judgment, order or decree from which under the organic act appeals lie.\nError to the district court of Socorro county, before Daniel H. McMillan, Associate Justice.\nWrit dismissed and caus\u00e9 remanded.\nGeorge W. Pritchard, District Attorney, and W. E. Kelley, of counsel, for plaintiff in error.\nUnder sections 299, 300, 301 and 302, Compiled Laws of New Mexico 1897, all claims presented by plaintiff in error are barred, and null and void except so far as there may be money belonging to the county general fund for the year 1900 applicable to the payment of the same; and before be can maintain bis action be must show by bis complaint that there is money in the bands of the county treasurer belonging to said county general fund applicable to the payment of said claims.\nKing I. B. Oo. v. Atoe Co., 124 U. S. (Law Ed.), 514; County of Lincoln v. Luning, 133 U. S. (Law Ed.) 766.\nThe laws passed by the territorial legislative assembly of New Mexico, 1897, having been submitted to Congress as required by law, and not disapproved, are in full force and effect.\nSection 1850, Revised Statutes United States, 1874.\nThe organic act, the laws of Congress, and the laws passed by the Legislature of the Territory are supreme and binding upon the courts of the Territory.\nAmerican and O. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. U. S. 511-542, Law Ed. 242-245; Hornbuclde v. Toombs, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 648, Law Ed. 966; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434, Law Ed. 659; Tbied v. Utah, 159 U. S. 514, Law Ed. 237, 21 Ency. PI. and Pr., p. 642.\nA party who by bis laches has allowed a judgment to be rendered against him, can not obtain relief against bis own neglect. But this principle does not apply where public officers, for their own private ends and with a selfish motive allow judgment or decree to gO' against the interests of the public.\nPeterbaugh, PI. find Pr., p. 768; Noble v. School Dist., 117 Ill. 30, 5 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, p. 496. .s to $$k;mfe a judgment for fr^ami p^^g^^\u00edSB\u00cdW ^gigfet^e r^pg^i]5\u00cdop.3;^itj^a/,e.CKmin \u00bf\u00abA B&kim Jfu^ep\u00edfef^eCi^ytptftjl^\u00ed (nyn jfw'SwteV (N 3noml\u00bbPiB^-y^;: \u00cdft-\u00ed? ihus.n 5-1^^4\u00b6.?^^9^;3&\u00bb\u00c1m\u00a1 \u2022Xiiibsto b^Ci!;2^w,g,,-Encs,I>l. anfalhlir\u00bfP*.\u00a38?^H^tcb v/nJ) .fa J\u00cd Y. 487; Ladd m ^ufurftpvpn.spjiyllg Np-\u00a3Y,5:326,^1 t( bW -\nCollusion is a grOuniJ)jfpr pettjng. aside; a,rjudgment. M boti\u00a1ri^ckpiafj5r, ^QrJpiwa;\u00bfl(6fe \u2022> iv .fcj voBfciiWfc4foUwm ^\u00a3\u00edB^p\u00f1\u00a7HY}f^djgr^ 421- ,rv.\"\u2018/-; Pi.\u2019b -rj r.A iiir/ as r, .jp.Lf tty&ggglegt is;eKC3i\u00a7abiegt insufficient to show a defense that is meritorious; wbicb jvillfbe;,determined by \u00a1mmi an mz \u00bbWro \u00abm\u00edt \u2022>?m*m-0a -nc ^pte^^fcj-tjiig\n,?\u00cdOT?'k-\u2018>w S,laftprly,t@ijAj3b,.l;:Priu(^. ^UjSjipre^e lo wilfiK $93?-rji) ,(;7'4-f ,i\u201d> F/;i\u00a1; asvshorir\u00f3.\n; VPiMm903fG\u00cdm9\u00cd>\\\u00fc'\u00a1BMPM?9 ;tt-Accprdi|ig|tp-early doctrine} \u00b6& jufgmppt/byr<3;pfauilt.,iWG(ul4j;npji-iTbe \u00a1opened in QKlpr \u00a3q aj^H\u00ed; \u00edg.p>, (pncpn^cijpnable; jdpfense. \u201e r;i \u00a1r 3 .17 anPr,vand au-.R\u00cd\u00ed} , ^opjtiggf jpi$e^vy;f;j,\u00a1:.-1 HU'. :\u25a0: \u201c-\u00cd .r-ur\u00ednj cnC \u00ed.i,';? ,.t-;-\u00edJj>o>i uy/j ;->jif i? ilii\u2019u fura \u2022;\u00a7<\u00aeneR^.^,\u00ed>i?\u00f3)B} l\u00a3g, }^! <\u00a7^mes& gg^rji^y. Chris- or \u201e\u2022\u00bb** j^tpn^n^S^i l^ak.;g\u00a70,{; |g\u00a1 Enc^ PI. and Pr., p. 198; Allen v. M'apes, 20 Wend. (N.:;.Y.) 633; Gonrlay v. Hutton, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 596; '*h 'i0k Y'B;0feiM,(v. \u201d^0X^1^% TO5\u00ae^*(Mfi\u201cS$p390; Belt y. Bowie, 65 Md. 350. ,lf \u25a0\u00edltBftD\u00cd,i\nThe'court ina;y\u00a1:>iinpp$@ \u00a7igja rOOp.diiitj.onH,of opening, the;paymeht\u00edof ;-all\u00edaecrxied: :c;osts. \u00ed-jjpii i 15 Ency. PL and Pr., p. 229 ;.j\u00a13g\u00ed>\u00edye y. Gold J\\lihing^Hoti29^Gal.?o\u00cd2l\u00edQi})ttW\u00cdiI\u00ed\u00edYiO$5Q\u00a1ttrigll, 83 .c'fGaD 457dU\u00ed ^\u00ediHI\u00cduC ,y s-i-M-ma'i \u2022sfr\u00ed SlM\u00bbtess^opaf@d\u00abi0feni\u00ae^hoMdfsb^\u00a3SSup\u00bfrp.e.d together and effect given to al'l. .acoirlib \u201eq J J\u00bbZ 'andrE\u00edg-.E-urcyE\u00edPl Dft]\u00ae,TK- 311.\nThe court can not disregard ;;tkg provisions\u2019 of sections 2.99ir 3;00) 36.1,^(^\u2022\u00bf^npi|^do