{
  "id": 8841908,
  "name": "MONTOYA v. HUBBELL et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Montoya v. Hubbell",
  "decision_date": "1921-07-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 2605",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.M. 273"
    }
  ],
  "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": "37 Pac. 451",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Wash. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        5061423
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/9/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Pac. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Cal. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2103787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/125/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Pac. 982",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Nev. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        2381462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/24/0230-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4141587019165982
    },
    "sha256": "1f281e9408b0d711159ddc45cd4e9749ef788a45389a181843a1f4358fd8cddd",
    "simhash": "1:a926b684311b3f64",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:02.094670+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "RAYNOLDS and PARKER, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MONTOYA v. HUBBELL et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nROBERTS, C. J.\nAppellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because no cost bond had been filed in compliance with the statute (section 15, chapter 43, Laws 1917). A cost bond was filed, but its validity is attacked on two grounds: First, because there was more than one appellant, and the bond was signed only by one appellant, who executed the same on his own behalf and other appellants. The sureties on the bond, however, undertook that the appellants would pay all costs that might be adjudged against them on said appeal, and equally assured the payment of the costs by the appellants not signing the bond as by the appellant who did sign it.\nThe statute does not require an appellant to join in the bond. It requires only that he file .a bond with sufficient sureties conditioned to pay the costs.\n\u201cThe obligation of the appellant to perform the judgment rendered on appeal results from the judgment itself, and an appeal bond is accordingly valid without his signature, unless the statute expressly requires \u2018execution by\u2019 the appellant.\u201d 1 Ency. PL & Pr. 973.\nThe second ground of attack upon the bond is that the record shows it was executed by the sureties two days before the taking of the appeal, and that it was approved by the clerk one day before the appeal was allowed by the court. The transcript shows that the appeal- was allowed on the 21st day of January, 1921, and that thereafter on, \u201cto wit, the 21st day of January, 1921, there was filed in the office of the clerk, etc., a cost bond,\u201d which is then set out.\nThere is no merit in this objection. It is the filing of the bond with the clerk of the district court that puts it into effect, not the date of its execution, or approval by the clerk. It must be approved by this official in order to. become effective as a cost bond, and while the better practice would be that the clerk should approve it before it is filed, the essential thing is its approval. The bond in the present case having' been executed, approved by the clerk, and filed, it is effective and valid, even though its execution and approval may have antedated the order allowing the appeal. 1 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 989; State v. Alta S. M. Co., 24 Nev. 230, 51 Pac. 982; Clarke v. Mohr, 125 Cal. 540, 58 Pac. 176; Debenture v. Warren, 9 Wash. 312, 37 Pac. 451.\nThe motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied; and it is so ordered.\nRAYNOLDS and PARKER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ROBERTS, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Marr\u00f3n & Wood, of Albuquerque, for appellants.",
      "Thomas K. D. Maddison and H. B. Jamison, both of Albuquerque, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 2605.\nJuly 20, 1921.]\nMONTOYA v. HUBBELL et al.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\n1. The obligation of the appellant to perform the judgment rendered on appeal results from the judgment itself, and an appeal bond is accordingly valid without Ms signature, unless the statute expressly requires execution by the appellant. P. 274\n2. A cost bond on appeal is valid and effective, even though it was executed by the sureties and approved by the clerk before the appeal was allowed by the court. P. 274\nAppeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Hickey, Judge.\nAction by Nestor Montoya against Frank A. Hubbell and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. On motion to dismiss.\nMotion denied.\nMarr\u00f3n & Wood, of Albuquerque, for appellants.\nThomas K. D. Maddison and H. B. Jamison, both of Albuquerque, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 291,
  "last_page_order": 293
}