{ "id": 208845, "name": "PETER ROSS, JR., Appellant, v. PATRICK BERRY, JR., Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Ross v. Berry", "decision_date": "1912-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 1418", "first_page": "48", "last_page": "56", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "17 N.M. 48" } ], "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": "14 N. M. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 204528 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/14/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. M. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 204498 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/14/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 N. M. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 204505 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/14/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N. W. 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "69 N. W. 88", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 Pac. 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "91 N. W. 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "case_ids": [ 2569068 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nd/11/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 N. W. 853", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 N. E. 742", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 N. Y. Supp. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7759455 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/68/0744-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N. W. 580", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "90 Pac. 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "39 S. E. 726", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 So. 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 N. W. 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "32 So. 934", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 S. W. 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "155 Fed. 199", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3958916 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/155/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Atl. 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "124 S. W. 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Pac. 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 N. W. 1038", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 N. E. 952", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 N. E. 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "76 S. W. 821", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "106 N. W. 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Atl. 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "101 S. W. 1108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "88 N. E. 1005", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 Atl. 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "106 Fed. 25", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6719301 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/106/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Pac. 1102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 8859881 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/kan/68/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Atl. 637", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "36 Atl. 181", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Atl. 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Atl. 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "88 N. E. 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "113 S. W. 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1908, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 S. E. 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 N. Y. Supp. 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7681980 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/104/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 N. E. 532", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 S. W. 592", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "98 N. Y.. Supp. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 3145990 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/98/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. Y. Supp. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 5677901 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/106/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Atl. 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "54 Pac. 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "95 Pac. 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "17 Atl. 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "30 Atl. 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 Atl. 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 Atl. 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "85 Pac. 1056", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 8515509 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wyo/15/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 N. Y. Supp. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7667882, 7667981 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/103/0499-01", "/nys/103/0499-02" ] }, { "cite": "3 Am. Dec. 399", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 S. E., 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "26 N. E., 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "118 N Y. Supp. 810", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7667688, 7667796 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/118/0810-01", "/nys/118/0810-02" ] }, { "cite": "9 N. W. 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 N. E. 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 Pac. 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "86 Pac. 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 8874147 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/utah/31/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Pac. 999", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "37 Pac. 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 Pac. 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "61 Pac. 98", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "103 Pac. 644", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "146 Mass. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 784119 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/146/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S. W. 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Miss. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 8840914 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/13/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. E. 251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "65 N. W. 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 N. Y. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 509608 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/47/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 N. Y. Supp. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 5403646 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nys/2/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Colo. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Colo.", "case_ids": [ 2588178 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/colo/6/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Me. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 634517 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/57/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N. Y. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 556058 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/96/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Barb. 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Wall. 19", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 N W. 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "119 Mass. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 737163 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/119/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Miss. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1644113 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/58/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Mass. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "93 N. W. 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "110 Fed. 95", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6717074 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/110/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 N. C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683564 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/2/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S. W. 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "60 Hun. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "55 Yt. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 2356364 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/55/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 N. W. 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "128 Ind. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1394820 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/128/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 Ind. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1380277 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/123/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Atl. 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 N. E. 925", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 N. E. 199", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Hun. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 N. Y. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2021184 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/18/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Conn. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 748778 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/43/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Wis. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8703777 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/51/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ala. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 902373 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/1/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S. Car. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 4389545 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/28/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 N. W. 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "113 N. Y. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2221839 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/113/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Mich. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1328348 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/40/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. W. 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "79 Pac. 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "59 S. W. 725", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 Pac. 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "78 Pac. 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Pac. 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 1210570 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/kan/66/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Pac. 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Mo. App. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 556875 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/7/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 N. W., 155", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "26 N. W., 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Mass., 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2055304 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/15/0329-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1082, "char_count": 15845, "ocr_confidence": 0.485, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.182242831056847e-07, "percentile": 0.5888928273424435 }, "sha256": "f1936e8e54324852a964cfdb110df7cb3d10b64247278270ae4747d5cc902ebb", "simhash": "1:2109d6b143c2674a", "word_count": 2886 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:20.218251+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PETER ROSS, JR., Appellant, v. PATRICK BERRY, JR., Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nPARKER, J\".\nThis is an action of replevin, and heretofore upon motion, the Bill of Exceptions was stricken \u25a0from the record by the Territorial Supreme Court. The inquiry here then is .limited to questions arising on the-pleadings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.\nThe first assignment questions the action of the Court in refusing to strike out the second amended complaint of appellee. The motion to strike out was founded upon two propositions, viz: (1) that the same was illegally filed because not authorized-by leave of the Court first had and obtained; (2) that there is a variance between the affidavit in replevin and the complaint.\nIn regard to the first proposition it is to be observed that, at the time of the filing of the second amended complaint, there was pending a motion to strike from the \u25a0 files the first amended complaint. The filing of the second amended complaint, under such circumstances,. amounted to a confession of the motion and accomplished all that appellant could accomplish by securing favorable action of the Court on his motion. Under such circumstances, appellant cannot be heard to complain, there-being no injury. The refusal of the Court to strike out the second amended complaint was the equivalent of granting leave, then and there, to file the second amended complaint, or, at least, cures the irregularity \u2022 of filing without leave.\n31 Cyc. 368.\nAs to the second proposition, it may be said that breach of the three successive complaints filed by the appellant he sued as administrator of the estate of Patrick Berry, Sr. The affidavit i,n replevin is entitled in the-cause, and appellee is styled as administrator in the title, and he subscribed the affidavit as complainant in the cause. But in the body of the affidavit, as the language is \u201cpersonally appeared Patrick Berry, Jr., who being-duly sworn, declares and says, that he has the legal right to the possession of the following described chattels and property, to-wit:\u201d\nCounsel say that this was a substantial variance be- \u25a0 tween the complaint and affidavit, and required the Court to strike out the complaint. Even if this amounted to - a variance, we are at a loss to understand how it required. the striking out of the complaint. Counsel cite no authority. If the affidavit was defective, it might furnish the basis for a motion to quash the writ of replevin, but it would certainly neither require nor authorize the striking out of the complaint. The first assignment, therefore, is not sustained.\nThe second assignment challenges the action of the Court in overruling the plea in abatement interposed by appellant to the second amended complaint.\nThe plea raised two propositions: (1) that there was a misnomer of both plaintiff and defendant i,n that they were styled, Patrick Berry, Jr., and Peter Eoss, Jr., whereas their true names were Patrick Berry and Peter Eoss; (2) that there was a variance between the affidavit in replevin and the complaint as above indicated.\nIt is hardly necessary to cite authority that the suffix \u201cJr.\u201d added to a man\u2019s name is no part of his name, and, with some few exceptions, may be disregarded.\n17 A. & E. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) 1036.\n29 Cyc. 267.\nTherefore, the question of variance had been held adversely to appellant on the motion to strike out the second amended complaint. If the question was still open, the plea in abatement was waived by a subsequent answer upon the merits.\n' 31 Cyc. 185.\nSeveral of the assignments present the proposition that the conclusions of law are not sustained by the \u25a0findings of facts. The Court made, among other findings of fact, the following:\n\u201cI find that during his lifetime, the decedent, Patrick Berry, made statements, not only that it was his intention to give the property i,n controversy to Peter Eoss, Jr., but also that he had given said property to Peter Eoss, Jr., and these statements are uncontroverted, and the Court finds them to have been made beyond a doubt.\u201d\n\u201cI also find that the said decedent, Patrick Berry, before leaving for Illinois, told the defendant, Peter Eoss, tliat lie gave him all the horses, farming implements in controversy, and that he was to keep them on the decedent\u2019s place and feed them there.\u201d\n\u201cI also find that when the deceased, Patrick Berry, left for Illinois, that he left the defendant, Peter Ross, Jr., in charge of said horses and implements, but that lie also left Patrick Berry, Jr., in charge of certain stock, to-wit, cattle, on said place, and that said stock were cared for for some time after the departure of the deceased, indiscriminately fed together.\u201d\n\u201cI also find that after his return from Illinois, he never exercised any control or dominion over said property, with the exception of mending some harness. I think that is all that is shown in the evidence.\u201d\nThe Court drew the following conclusions of law:\n\u201c'That the decedent, Patrick Berry, Sr., though intending to make a gift inter vivos, failed to do so, for the reason that the evidence fails to show that said gift was completed by delivery to the defendant, Peter Ross, Jr., of the articles he claims, except those found in the statement of the foregoing findings of fact.\u201d\n\u201cThat the plaintiff in this case, is entitled to judgment as prayed for in his complaint to all those articles, except those mentioned in the findings of fact, and that judgment be entered accordingly.\u201d\n\u201cI find that the demand was unnecessary, and that the costs in said cause, be paid, one-half by the plaintiff, and one-half by the defendant.\u201d\nWe are unable to see wherein the findings of fact fail to support the conclusions. It appears from the fourth finding of fact, that the grandfather gave the appellant instructions as to where he was to keep the property in question. This negatives the idea of a complete delivery of possession and dominion. The first conclusion of law, so called, is a mixed conclusion of law and fact, and is a finding that delivery was not complete. No further nor more explicit or detailed findings were requested by the appellant, and we are unable to examine the Bill of Exceptions, it having heretofore been stricken out. It therefore becomes impossible to say that delivery was in fact completed by the grandfather to the appellant. It follows, therefore, that the assignments relating to this matter cannot be sustained.\nThe conclusion of the Court that no demand was necessary was correct, the appellant claiming title and right to possession therefrom in himself.\n34 Cyc. 1409.\nCobbey on Replevin, Secs. 447, 448.\nAll of the remaining assignments relate to matters occurring at the trial and are not reviewable here in the absence of the Bill of Exceptions.\nThere was no error in the judgment of the Court below, and> it will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, J\"." } ], "attorneys": [ "U. L. Bickley and J. Leai-iy, for Appellant.", "E. C. Crampton and L. S. Wilson, for Appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "[No. 1418,\nFebruary 6, 1912.]\nPETER ROSS, JR., Appellant, v. PATRICK BERRY, JR., Appellee.\nSYLLABUS (BY THE COURT).\n1. The refusal of the Court to strike out a second amended complaint, filed without leave, cures the irregularity of filing the same without leave.\n2. A variance between the complaint and affidavit in replevin, as to the character in which the plaintiff sues, is no ground for striking out the complaint.\n3. The suffixes \u201cJr.\u201d or \u201cSr.\u201d are no part of a man\u2019s name and, except in a few instances, may be disregarded.\n4. A plea in abatement is waived by a subsequent answer to the merits.\n5. No demand is .necessax\u2019y in an action of replevin, where the defendant claims title and right to possession as incident thereto in himself.\n6. The findings of fact in this case held to support the conclusions of law and the judgment.\nAppeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District; Territory of New Mexico, County of Colfax.\nAffirmed.\nU. L. Bickley and J. Leai-iy, for Appellant.\nWithout demand, it was error for the court to find for appellee and render judgment in his favor. Cobbey on Replevin, sec. 481; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass., 364; Barnes v. Gardner, 26 N. W., 858; Wheeler & Wilson M. \u25a0Co. v. Tertzlaff, 10 N. W., 155; 34 Cyc. 1404; State to Use, etc. v. Daily, 7 Mo. App. 548.\nThe law requires only such formality of a transfer of dominion, or placing the donee in a position to assume \u25a0dominion as will carry out the intention of the donor. Waite v. Grubbe, et ux, 73 Pac. 206; Calvin v. Free, 71 Pac. 823; Sprague v. Walton, 78 Pac. 645; Phinney v. State, id. 927; Pullen et al. v. Placer Co. Bank, 66 Pac. 740; Boyston v. McCulley, 59 S. W. 725; Walker v. Haryear, 79 Pac. 472; Foley v. Harrison, 136 S. W. 354; Davis v. Zimmerman, 40 Mich. 24; May v. May, 36 111. App. 77; Lewis v. Merritt, 113 N. Y. 386; Carpenter v. Butterick, 41 Midi. 701, 3 N. W. 196; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 55 Yt.-325; Bennett v. Cook, 28 S. Car. 353; Sewell v. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52; Eeynolds v. Eeynolds, 18 S. W.'517; Kellogg v. Adams, 51 Wis. 138; Wheeler v. Wheeler, 43 Conn. 503; Williams v. Fitch, 18 N. Y. 546; Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Hun. 470; Fearing v. Jones, 20 N. E. 199; Scott v. Ford, 2 N. E. 925; Marston v. Marston, 5 Atl. 713; Devol v. Dye, 123 Ind. 321; Gammon T. Seminary y. Bobbins, 128 Ind. 85; Love vs. Francis, 29 N. W. 843; Miller v. Le Piere, 136 M,ass. 20; Phipps v. Hope, 16 O. St. 586; Stephenson v. King, 50 Amer. Eep. 172; Eoss v. Draper, 55 Yt. 404 (45 Amer. Eep. 627); Porter v. Gardner, 60 Hun. 571; Patterson v. Patterson, 27 S. W. 837; Allen v. Cowan, 80'Am. Dec. 316; Danley vs. Bector, 50 Amer. Dec. 244; Harris v. Hopkins, 38 Amer. Eep. 180; Martrick vs. Linfield, 32 Amer. Dec. 265; Boach y. George\u2019s Executor, 13 Ky. Law. 493; Errington v. Errington, 2 N. C. 1; Bates v. Yary, 40 Ala.'421; Beed v. Colcock, 9 Amer. Dec. 729; Snyder v. Snyder, 92 N. W. \u25a0353; King v. Smith, 110 Fed. 95; Loan &' Trust Co. v. Holmes, 93 N. W. 39; Pierce v. Savings Bank, 129 Mass. 431; Grover v. 'Grover, 35 Amer. Dec. 319; Brown v. Brown, 46 Amer. Dec. 328; Schollmyer v. Cohoendelin, 16 Amer. St. 455; Carradine v. Carradine, 58 Miss. 286; McKenzie v. Harxison, 120 N. Y. '260; Hunt v. Hunt, 119 Mass. 474; Ellis v. Lacor, 18 Amer. Eep. 178; Davis v. Kuck, 101 M W.. 165; Darland v. Taylor, 3 N W. 510; Neal v. Neal, 9 Wall. 19 L. Ed. 590; 20 Cyc. 1199-1210; 27 Central Law Jour. 90; Thornton on Gifts, Secs. 148, p. 122, note 4, p. 125, and pages 148, 154, 155, 158; Leyson v. Davis, 31 L. E. A. 429; Eulton v. Fulton, 48 Barb. 592; Armitage v. Mace, 96 N. Y. 538; Wing v. Merchant, 57 Me. 383; Margaret G. Lord v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 56 L. E. A. 596.\nThe evidence of work done by appellant for deceased had a necessary bearing on the question of gift. Gillum v. French, 6 Colo. 196; Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 2 N. Y. Supp. 317; Thornton on Gifts, pp. 196-200.\nWhen doubt exists whether the donor intended a gift or a loan, explicit declaration of intention made after the transaction is admissible, for the purpose of removing-the ambiguity. Thornton on Gifts, secs. 225, 230; Doty v._ Willson, 47 N. Y. 580; Blake v. Jones, Bail. Eq. (S'. C.) 141; Yancey v. Field, 85 Ya. 756; Harris v. Hop-' kins, 38 Am. Eep. 180.\nThe law always presumes knowledge of its requirements. Breier v. Weier, 33 111. App. 386; Marsh v. Prentiss, 48 111. App. 74; Phoenix v. Gillfillan, 47 111. Apji. 220; Ole-son v. Gifford, 65 N. W. 294; Scrivens v. North Easton Sav. Bank, 44 N. E. 251; Falconer v. Holland, 13 Miss. 689; Myer v. Koehring, 31 S. W. 449; Amer. & Eng-. Encyc., Yol. 14, 1024; Sims v. Sims, 33 Amer. Dec. 293; Hillbrant v. Brewer, 55 Amer. Dec. 757; Cummings v. Coleman, 62 Amer. Dec. 402; Alger v. N. E. Sav. Bank, 146 Mass. 418.\nE. C. Crampton and L. S. Wilson, for Appellee.\nMotion to dismiss appeal. Street v. Smith, 103 Pac. 644-(N. M.).\nStatute requires five days\u2019 notice to opposite party. Sec.. 26, Ch. 57, Laws 1897; In re Scott\u2019s estate, 61 Pac. 98; State v. Howard, 46 Pac. 650; Safford v. Turner, 37 Pac. 121; McKay v. Ey. Co. 31 Pac. 999; Yan Why v. S. P\u2018. E. E. Co. 86 Pac. 485.\nStatute requires signing and settling bill of exceptions. Maloney v. Adsit, 175 II. S. 281.\nBill of exceptions was never filed with the Clerk of the Court. Pettitt v. People, 52 Pac. 676; L. & N E. E. v. Sclnnide, 46 N. E. 344.\nOn merits. Pleadings are sufficient. Lucas v. Pittman,. 10 So. Eep. 603; Sub-section 245, Cli. 107, Laws of N M. 1907; 31 Cyc. 490; 34 Cyc. 1489; Sub-sec. 81, sec. 2685, laws of 1897.\nDelivery of property must be shown, a,nd burden of proof is on claimant. Duncomb v. Eiehards, 9 N. W. 149; Tompkins v. Leary, 118 N Y. Supp. 810; 6 Enc-of Ev. 206 and 207.\nA mere declaration of a gift is not sufficient to make it valid. There must be an actual delivery and change of the subject matter. Barnum v. Eeed, 26 N. E., 572; Yancey v. Field, 8 S. E., 721; Truby v. Pease, 88 N. Ev. 1005; Noble v. Smith, 3 Am. Dec. 399; Chamberlain v. Eddy, 118 N. TV. 499; Turnbull v. Turnbull, 103 N. Y. Supp. 499; Hecht v. Shaffer, 85 Pac. 1056; Nogga v. Savings Bank, 65 Atl. 129; Buecker v. Carr, 47 Atl. 34;. Citizens\u2019 Savings Bank v. Mitchell, 30 Atl. 626; Drew v. Hagerly, 17 Atl. 63; Allen v. Allen, 77 N. TV. 567.\nWhere the gift is not asserted until the death of the\u2019 donor the transaction should be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Eobinson v. Savings Bank, 95 Pac. 533; Knight v. Tripp, 54 Pac. 267; Schuyler v. Stevens,. 68 Atl. 311; In re Wright, 106 N. Y. Supp. 369; Dun-comb v. Eiehards, 9 N. TV. 149; In re Bailey, 98 N. Y.. Supp. 725; Jones v. Falls, 73 S. TV. 903.\nGifts against the policy of the law are regarded with suspicion. Albro v. Albro, 65 S. W. 592; Gano v. Fisk, 3 N. E. 532; Davis v. Davis, 104 N. Y. Supp. 824; Buecker v. Carr, 47 Atl. 34; Smith v. Smith, 24 S. E. 280.\nIn case of gifts inter vivos or causa mortis title of property will not pass without actual delivery. Stark v. Kelley, 113 S. W. 498 (1908); Nelson v. Peterson, 88 N. E. 916,. Mass. 1909; Bickford v. Mattocks, 50 Atl. 894, Md.; Med-lock v. Powell, 2 S. E. Eep. 149; Jones v. Crisp, 71 Atl. 515, Md. 1908; In re Schiehl\u2019s Estate, 36 Atl. 181, Pa.;. Bauernschmidt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 Atl. 637, Md.; Bruce v. Squyer, 74 Pac. 1102; Wright v. Bragg, 106 F\u00e9d. 25; Yolcen. v. Ilicks, 93 111. App. 667; Taylor v. Yail, 66 Atl. 820, Yt. 1907; 14 A. & E. L. 1015-1026; 20 Cyc. 11\u00d35.\nIf bailee appears to be agent of the donor, the attempted .gift is invalid. Bickford v. Mattocks, 50 Atl. 894; Truby v. Pease, 88 N. E. 1005; Godard v. Conrad, 101 S. W. 1108; Appeal of Walsh, 15 Atl. 470\nAn attempted gift by way of delivery is insufficient unless the money is obtained thereon and delivered. In re Stitt\u2019s Estate, 106 N. W. 114, Wis. 1906; 20 Cyc. 1206; \u2022 Shubert v. Sliubert, 76 S. W. 821, Tenn.; In re Bartlett, 40 N. E. 899, Mass.; Mason v. Gardner, 71 N. E. 952, Mass.; Conrad v. Manning, 83 N. W. 1038, Mich.; Tracy v. Alvord, 50 Pac. 757, Cal.; Shaw v. Camp, 43 N. E. \u25a0608, 111.; Eoxwortliy v. Adams, 124 S. W. 381, Ky. 1910; In re Smith\u2019s Estate, 38 Atl. 66 Yt.; Quirk v. \u2022Quirk, 155 Fed. 199; Rodemer v. Rettig, 71 S. W. 869; Ross v. Walker, 32 So. 934; Trembly v. Klersy, 104 N. W. 419, Mich, 1905.\nWhere property is wrongfully detained no demand is necessary. Webster v. B-B-C Co., 20 So. 536, Fla.; 34 \u2022Cyc. 1404; Satterthwaite v. Ellis, 39 S. E. 726, N. C.; Klug v. Munce, 90 Pac. 603, Colo. 1907; Leek v. Chestey, 67 N. W. 580, O\u00edda.; Milligan v. B. W. & S. Co., 68 N. Y. Supp. 744; Bisbee v. Fadden, 1 N. E. 742, Mass.; Guthrie v. Olson, 46 N. W. 853, Minn.; Thompson v. Thompson, 91 N. W. 44, N. D.; 34 Cyc. 1409, 1410; Barton v. Mulvane, 52 Pac. 883, Kansas; Breitenwischer v. Clough, 69 N. W. 88, Mich.; Bryne v. Bryne, 62 N. W. 413, Wis.\nAppellate courts will not disturb judgments of trial \u25a0courts on disputed evidence where the evidence reasonably tends to support the judgment. Sherman v. Hicks, 14 N. M. 439; Richardson v. Pierce, 14 N. M. 334; Hancock v. Beasleyq 14 N. M. 239; 3 Cyc. 360." }, "file_name": "0048-01", "first_page_order": 48, "last_page_order": 56 }