{
  "id": 1551480,
  "name": "LINEGAR et al. v. BLACK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Linegar v. Black",
  "decision_date": "1926-08-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 3190",
  "first_page": "610",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.M. 610"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "248 P. 1101"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2185,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "sha256": "a4fc5777a3bd0d3a56a5dc16be70fd1cc1be94d6c438ef3cc821eed54faadb3e",
    "simhash": "1:5e7fdfac34237384",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:31.532037+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "B1CKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LINEGAR et al. v. BLACK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nPARKER, C. J.\nA motion is made to docket and affirm the judgment in this cause. The motion is based upon the proposition that the several orders of ex-tention of time within which to prepare the record on appeal were granted by the district court ex parte upon the application of appellant, the appellee having no notice of the sime. Argument is made that an application for such extension of time is a hearing, and must be upon five days\u2019 notice, as mentioned in section 4186, Code 1915.\nIn this counsel is in error. Section 36 of chapter 43, Laws 1917, governs the matter, and makes no requirement of notice. The application.is in no sense an adversary proceeding, and the granting of the extension in no way results in injury to the adverse party. The section requires diligence on the part of the appellant and the taking of proper steps to promptly have prepared the record on appeal. If these steps are taken, and the record cannot be made up in time, the fault is not that of the appellant, but must be of either the clerk or the reporter. Under such circumstances, the appellant would .seem to be entitled as a matter of right to the extension, which the appellee could in no instance defeat. We therefore hold that no notice in such eases is. required. That this is in accordance with the general trend of the holdings elsewhere, see 4 Standard Encyc. of Proc. 342; 4 C. J. \u201cAppeal and Error,\u201d \u00a7 1901.\nIt follows that the motion to docket and affirm should be denied: and it is so ordered.\nB1CKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. F. Kelton, of Ft. Sumner, for appellant.",
      "H. R. Parsons, of Ft. Sumner, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3190.\nAug. 23, 1926.]\nLINEGAR et al. v. BLACK.\n[248 Pac. 1101.]\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT\nNo notice to the adverse party is required upon an application for an extension of time within which to prepare and complete the record on appeal (Laws 1917, c. 43, \u00a7 36; Code 1915, \u00a7 4186).\nAppeal from District Court, De Baca County; Hatch, Judge.\nAction by Eli W. Linegar and others against William A. Black. From the judgment below, defendant appeals.\nOn motion to docket and affirm the judgment. Motion denied.\nJ. F. Kelton, of Ft. Sumner, for appellant.\nH. R. Parsons, of Ft. Sumner, for appellees.\nrn 4CJ p. 280 11. 77; p. 200 ll. 82."
  },
  "file_name": "0610-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 625
}