{
  "id": 4725806,
  "name": "WELLS v. ROMERO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wells v. Romero",
  "decision_date": "1916-09-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 1885",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.M. 191"
    }
  ],
  "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": "36 N. W. 864",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Pac. 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ore. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        2271068
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/24/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S. W. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ky. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        1320751
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/86/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N. W. 1068",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N. E. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1809,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.515637304601577e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8109880151313841
    },
    "sha256": "97f28ef6a5961aa249af3611eabde3d77be5588d0389d8280bf9c84d1a60d008",
    "simhash": "1:54a797a00f9be853",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:04.379365+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Roberts, C.J., and Hanna, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WELLS v. ROMERO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nPARKIER, J.\nAppellant recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace for $9.51 against the appellee. From this judgment the appellant appealed to the district court, where the judgment of the justice of the peace was affirmed and final judgment rendered. Thereafter, and prior to the taking of the appeal to this court, the appellee paid into court the amount of this judgment, which was accepted and received by the appellant in full settlement and satisfaction of the judgment.' Thereafter he appealed to this court. Under such circumstances the right to review the judgment' had been waived and lost to the appellant. 3 C. J. p. 681, \u00a7 554.\nIt follows that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.'\nRoberts, C.J., and Hanna, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKIER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward P. Davies of Santa Fe, for appellee.",
      "Geo W. Prichard of Santa Fe, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 1885,\nSeptember 5, 1916.]\nWELLS v. ROMERO.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\nThe receipt and acceptance of the amount of a judgment in full settlement and satisfaction thereof defeats the right to review such judgment on appeal.\nAppeal from District Court, Torrance County; Medler, Judge.\nAction by N. A. Wells against Cleofas Romero, begun in justice court, and appealed to the district court. From a judgment there in his favor, plaintiff appeals.\nAffirmed.\nEdward P. Davies of Santa Fe, for appellee.\nThe appeal must be dismissed because appellant, prior to the perfecting thereof, accepted money in full settlement of fire judgment.\n3 C. J. 681, sec. 554; Martin v. Bott, 1J Ind. A. 444 (46 N. E. 151); MeKelvey v. Burlington R. R. Co., 58 N. W. 1068; Brown v. Vancleave, 86 Ky. 381, 6 S. W. 25; Graham v. Sapery, 44 N. T. 1109; Portland Constr. Co. v. O\u2019Neil, 24 Ore. 54, 32 Pac. 674; Webster-Glovcr Lbr., etc., Co. v. St. Croix County, 71 Wls. 317, 36 N. W. 864,\nGeo W. Prichard of Santa Fe, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}