{
  "id": 2397637,
  "name": "EATON v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF DALHART, TEX.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eaton v. First Nat. Bank",
  "decision_date": "1918-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 1943",
  "first_page": "687",
  "last_page": "688",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.M. 687"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 Pac. 1184",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N. M. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4725330
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/22/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 Pac. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N. M. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4725699
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/22/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.050042922922501e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5045413844590939
    },
    "sha256": "3ede4e3914a0ca6884bdd6049c08b3567ac369c1e71c7719f2df8afec0e7f9d1",
    "simhash": "1:cf81dfb063163495",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:41.159686+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER and ROBERTS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EATON v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF DALHART, TEX."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nHANNA, C. J.\nThe plaintiff in error assigns nine reasons why the judgment of the trial court should be reversed. Each error assigned depends upon the record of the transcript of testimony and proceedings at the 'trial. That record is certified to by the stenographer, but was not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions, nor certified to by the trial judge. The certificate of the stenographer is not sufficient in itself to make such proceedings a part of the record for review here. Cox v. Duglas Candy Co., 22 N. M. 410, 163 Pac. 251; Rogers v. Crawford, 22 N. M. 365, 161 Pac. 1184.\nConsequently the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nPARKER and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HANNA, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 1943.\nJanuary 7, 1918.)\nEATON v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF DALHART, TEX.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\n. Questions dependent upon facts appearing in the transcript of evidence cannot he considered where the proceedings at the trial are not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions, or certified to by the court or referee.\nError to District Court, Uni<m\u00ab\u00abCounty; Leib, Judge.\nAction between William J. Eaton and the First National Bank of Delhart, Texas. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error.\nAffirmed.\nO. P. Easterwood, of Clayton, and W. J. Eaton, of Socorro, for plaintiff in error. Joseph Gill, of Clayton, for \u00abdefendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0687-01",
  "first_page_order": 703,
  "last_page_order": 704
}