{
  "id": 11272102,
  "name": "GUADALUPE PEREA de HARRISON et al., Appellees, v. PEDRO PEREA et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "de Harrison v. Perea",
  "decision_date": "1902-08-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 925",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.M. 505"
    }
  ],
  "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": "5 Cal. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Wall. 425",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3449678
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/74/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 How. 518",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3362169
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/54/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Wheat. 212",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wheat.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443463
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/16/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Fed. 23",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        6729576
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/10/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Cal. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Cal. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2264240
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/33/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Wall. 648",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3426191
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655, 656"
        },
        {
          "page": "656"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/85/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Wall. 434",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        1134195
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/80/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Penn. St. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Am. Dec. 663",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Cal. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2335103
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/45/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Cal. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2298150
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "277"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/11/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Cal. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        1918265
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/54/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ala. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3159666
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/33/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Day 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Day",
      "case_ids": [
        6753428
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/day/4/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ala. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3083704
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/15/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 U. S. 204",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 U. S. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Cal. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        1941283
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/93/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Cal. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2249625
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/66/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Cal. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N. M. 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Utah 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Utah",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 How. 130",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        5678091
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/58/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Wall. 431",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Allen 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Allen",
      "case_ids": [
        2095287
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/83/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 U. S. 658",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3494298
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/104/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Fed. 645",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3792262
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/63/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Fed.- 571",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        6734951
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/88/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 U. S. 453",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5631018
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/101/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Kan. 703",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N. M. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4657729
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/7/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 U. S. 498",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3494172
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/104/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Wall. 670",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3394758
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/87/0670-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 U. S. 508",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        4653
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/100/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N. M. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Wall. 383",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 U. S. 215",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138501
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/143/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 U. S. 570",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 How. 90",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3463713
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/64/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 How. 159",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3464143
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/65/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Pac. 933",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "937"
        },
        {
          "page": "938"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 603,
    "char_count": 7784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.115716281735759e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3810579304044367
    },
    "sha256": "964a45653754aaa626a6dc63cbe64a6fc0f57d61261034561d81a95dd899ce1b",
    "simhash": "1:97cba88561cdf61c",
    "word_count": 1338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:31.770725+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mills, C. J., McMillan and Parker JJ., concur.",
      "McFie, A. J.,- having tried the case below did not participate in this decision."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GUADALUPE PEREA de HARRISON et al., Appellees, v. PEDRO PEREA et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nBAKER, J.\nThis is an appeal from the district court, of Santa Fe county, from the following order: \u201cThis cause coming on to be heard on demurrer heretofore filed in the above-entitled cause, and the court having heard counsel for both plaintiff and defendants and being now sufficiently advised in the premises, the saM demurrer is overruled.\u201d In the opinion of the court this is an interlocutory order, from which an appeal will not lie. At the last sitting of this court it was so- held in Jung v. Myer, 68 Pac. 933; Machen v. Keeler, Id., 937; Board, etc., v. Blackington, Id. 938.\nAppeal dismissed and cause remanded for further proceedings.\nMills, C. J., McMillan and Parker JJ., concur.\nMcFie, A. J.,- having tried the case below did not participate in this decision.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BAKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Catron & Gortner for appellants.",
      "W. B.' Childers for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 925.\nAugust 28, 1902.]\nGUADALUPE PEREA de HARRISON et al., Appellees, v. PEDRO PEREA et al., Appellants.\nSYLLABUS.\nAn appeal will not lie from an interlocutory order.\nAppeal from the district.court of Santa Fe county, before John R. MoFie, Associate Justice.\nAppeal dismissed and cause remanded.\nCatron & Gortner for appellants.\nSection 562 of tbe Compiled Laws provides: \u201cTbe several probate judges shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases relative to tbe probate of last wills and testaments; the granting letters testamentary and of administration, and tbe repealing tbe same . . . tbe settlement and allowance of the accounts of executors and administrators . . . tbe right of executor-ship, administration and guardianship, respecting tbe duties or accounts of executors, administrators or guardians. . . .\u201d This law confers exclusive jurisdiction in these matters upon the probate court.\nEstate of Moulton, 9 Utah 162.\nIf the law commands or prohibits a thing to be done, equity can not enjoin the controversy or dispense with the obligation.\n1 Story Eq. Jur., sec. 69; Mining Co. v. District Court, 7 N. M. 501.\nThe jurisdiction for the settlement of decedent\u2019s estates is generally conceded to be in the probate courts in this country.\nCopinger v. Rice, 38 Cal. 408; 66 Cal. 112 ;\nReed v. King, 93 Cal. 96.\nIn such matters the Legislature has conferred unlimited jurisdiction on the probate courts as it was authorized to do by the organic act which at section 7 says: \u201cThe legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. What is meant by rightful subjects of legislation?\nCope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 684; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 204; Organic Act, sec. 10.\nThe administration of estates and the settlement of accounts of administrators, fall peculiarly and exclusively under the cognizance of probate courts.\nGreen v. Creighton\u2019s Admr., 10 S. and M. 159; Jones v. Coon, 5 S. and M. 151; 1 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., secs. 348, 349 and 350.\nIn case of fraud practiced in tbe settlement, see\u2014\nTurnbull v. Endicott, 3 S. and M. 304.\nIn Alabama, Arkansas and Connecticut, probate \u25a0courts have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in the \u2022administration of estates.\nKing v. Smith, 15 Ala. 264; Goodrich v. Thompson, 4 Day 215; Ornet, Exr., v. Ornet, 33 Ala. 273; Osborn v. Graham, 30 Ark. 67.\nIn California it is held that the probate court has jurisdiction to settle the accounts of an administrator, and to ascertain and determine his liability to the estate, and the decree is conclusive, subject to be set aside, reversed or modified on appeal.\nEeynolds v. Brumagen, 54 Cal. 254; Williams v. Price,, 11 Cal. 212; Estate of Garrud, 35 Id. 277; Kingsley v. Miller, 45 Cal. 95; Estate of Hudson, Id. 446; Dean v. Supr. Ct., 11 P. C. 535 L. J.; McClellan v. Downey, Id. 448; Freeman v. Kahm, 8 Id. 126.\nIn Pennsylvania it is held: If there is anything besides death which is not to be doubted, it is that the orphans\u2019s court alone has authority to ascertain the amount of the decedent\u2019s property and order its distribution among those entitled to it,\nMcPherson v. Conliff, 14 Am. Dec. 663 and note; Whiteside v. Whiteside, 29 Penn. St. 474.\nSee also Blake y. Butler, 10 E. I. 133.\nThe probate court having acquired jurisdiction, equity will not intermeddle.\nBeach, Mod. Eq. Jurisp., sec. 1033, p. 1113; Woerner on Admrs., 357; Pomeroy, Eq. Jurisp., 1154; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434; Hornbuckle v. Tombs, 18 Wall. 648, 655, 656.\nThe complainants have a right of action in ejectment or by partition for any damage on account of realty. As to personal property they have a right of \u25a0action on the administrator\u2019s bond.\nOpinger v. Eice, 33 Cal. 408; Eeed v. King, 98 Cal. 96; McNeal y. First Congregational Society, 66 Cal. 112.\nWhere two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the one which first assumes the jurisdiction, retains it exclusively of the other.\n\u25a0 Beach on Modern Equity Jurisprudence,, sec. 1038, p. 1113; Woerner on Admr. 357.\nW. B.' Childers for appellees.\nThe district courts of this Territory in the exercise of their chancery jurisdiction, can entertain a bill for-the settlement of an estate, an accounting as to diversion and conversion of the estate and for fraud and deceit practiced by the administrator..\n3 Pomeroy\u2019s Eq. Juris., sec. 1153; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. 23, and cases cited; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; Penn v. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425-30; Clark v. Perry, 5 Cal. 60.\nThe courts of the United States have jurisdiction a-t common law and chancery, and wherever such jurisdiction may be appropriately exercised, there being no objection to the citizenship of the parties, the courts of the United States have jurisdiction.\nFitch v. Creighton, 24 How. 159; Kendall v. Creighton, 23 How. 90.\nAnd the court also* decided that such jurisdiction would be exercised, \u201cnotwithstanding the local laws relative to the administration and settlement of estates.\u201d'\nHayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 570; Lawrence v. Nelson, 143 U. S. 215.\nThe general history of Federal jurisprudence and the organic act must be considered and any territorial legislation inconsistent therewith must be considered-void.\nFerris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 383; Archibeque . v. Miera, 1 N. M. 161; U. S. v. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508; Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670; Vistor y. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648, 656.\nThe measure of the general chancery and common 1 law jurisdiction of the courts in the Territory is the same as that which the court would have if there was only one \u25a0court held at one place in the district.\nSchofield v. Stevens, 7 N. M. 619; Klemp v. Winter, 23 Kan. 703; City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453; Bertha, etc., Company v. Vaughn, 88 Fed.- 571; Van Bokkelen v. Cook, 5 Sawyer 587; Fed. 16 Cases, 831; Appleton v. Marx, 63 Fed. 645; Perea v. Barela, 5 New Mexico 468.\nThe allegations of the bill in this case are sufficiently \u25a0certain to apprise the defendants of the case they are to meet.\n1 Daniel\u2019s Chan. PI. and Pr., 313, 314 and note; Id. 360 and 361 and notes; 3 Daniel\u2019s Chan., 1997 to 2000 for form; St. Louis v. Knapp, 104 U. S. 658.\nIf a bill contains two subjects, and the court has .juridiction of only one of them, the court will treat it as if it ymre single and proceed Avith the matter over which .it has jurisdiction.\nStory\u2019s Equity Pleading, sec. 283 and note; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige\u2019s Ch. 160; McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen 269.\nA bill that is multifarious may be amended by : striking out the allegations which render it multifarious.\nRose v. Rose, 11 Paige\u2019s Ch. 1677, and see Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barbour\u2019s Ch. 433; Compiled Laws, secs. 1910, 1911.\nMoreover, bills Avith double aspects are allowable.\nPayne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 431; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; 1 Daniel\u2019s Ch. PL and Pr., 233 and cases cited in note 3; Id., p. 313, note 8 and cases cited."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 523,
  "last_page_order": 528
}