{
  "id": 8842148,
  "name": "CORNETT v. FULFER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cornett v. Fulfer",
  "decision_date": "1920-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 2384",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.M. 368"
    }
  ],
  "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": "26 N. M. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841544
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/26/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Pac. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N. M. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4734581
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/25/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Pac. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N. M. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8512818
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/24/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Pac. 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N. M. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8512753
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/24/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2173,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.764881087503499e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7105665233764594
    },
    "sha256": "1852bf477f1d6d6310538898dfb392d37b4d3282eb90332d569b0d90987f2ca6",
    "simhash": "1:40e150b68a03693e",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:50.000587+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "RobeRts and RayNOlds, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CORNETT v. FULFER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "\u2022OPINION OB\u2019 THE COURT.\nPARKER, C. J.\nThe appeal in this case was dismissed by a former opinion on the ground that the record did not contain any judgment of the date specified in the order granting the appeal. The parties since that time have filed a stipulation which cures this objection, and the case now turns on the proposition as to whether the judgment from which the appeal is taken is an appealable judgment. The appellant moved to dissolve the writ of garnishment for irregularitiess on its issuance, and it is from the order of the court denying this motion that the appeal was taken.\nThe order of the trial court in the premises is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order, judgment, or decision of the class from which an appeal may be taken under the provisions of Chapter 43, Laws 1917. In the case of Otto-Johnson Mercantile Co. v. Garcia, 24 N. M. 356, 174 Pac. 422, we held that the denial of a motion to dismiss a ease was not an appealable order. In Stephenson v. County Commission, 24 N. M. 486, 174 Pac. 739, we held, that an order striking appellant\u2019s motion to quash a writ of replevin was not appealable, and in Morrison v. Robinson, 25 N. M. 417, 184 Pac. 214, we held .that an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint was not an appealable order. This case falls within the principle of those cases. Being neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory judgment, order, or decision appealable under the -statute, the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal will be granted; and it is so ordered.\nRobeRts and RayNOlds, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. A. Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellant.",
      "J. E. Pardue and T. M. Noble, both for Ft. Sumner, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CORNETT v. FULFER.\n[No. 2384.\nOn Rehearing July 2,. 1920.]\n(On Rehearing.)\nAn order denying a motion to quash a writ of garnishment ' is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory judgment, order or decision practically disposing of the merits of the action, and hence is not appealable.\nAppeal from\u2019 District Court, De Baca County; Richardson, Judge.\nAction by J. H. Cornett against J. P. Fulfer. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant .appeals.\nAppeal dismissed.\nR. A. Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellant.\nJ. E. Pardue and T. M. Noble, both for Ft. Sumner, for appellee.\n(See also 26 N. M. 175.)"
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}