{
  "id": 1554454,
  "name": "PERSHING v. WARD et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pershing v. Ward",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 3242",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 N.M. 91"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "262 P. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 P. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N. M. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4684292
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/16/0202-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 P. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N. M. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1554367
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/33/0086-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 3035,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.67,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05811593648896132
    },
    "sha256": "a54cc1578a08ce43554fa9c2b4d441d1ebd27131a9f795dbe5d47514e913f30a",
    "simhash": "1:f629dfa028e023b1",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:02.022153+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PERSHING v. WARD et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nBICKLEY, J.\nAppellee presents a motion to strike from the transcript of record \u201cbrief of plaintiff.\u201d Appellant concedes that this paper is no part of the record proper and should not have been incorporated therein. The motion to strike is sustained, in so far as it refers to said \u201cbrief of plaintiff.\u201d\nThe second paragraph of appellee\u2019s motion is as follows :\n\u201c(2) Appellees further move the court to strike from the transcript of record in this cause, the following:\n\u201c(1) Plaintiff\u2019s motion requesting the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n\u201c(2) Exceptions of plaintiff to memorandum and findings of the court made April 7, 1927.\n\u201c(3) Plaintiff\u2019s motion requesting the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n\u201c(4) \u2018Exceptions of the plaintiff, R. S. Pershing, to the findings of fact, made by the court herein on the 18th day of May, 1926, and to the refusal of the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law requested by plaintiff herein.\u2019\n\u201c(5) Additional conclusions of law requested by the plaintiff.\n\u201cAnd for grounds of said motion state:\n\u201c(1) That said requested findings of fact and conclusions of law by plaintiff, and plaintiff\u2019s exceptions to the court\u2019s findings of fact and exceptions to the failure of the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, as set out in the above paragraphs, are not a part of the record proper in this cause, in that ihey are not required to be filed- by any statute or rule, and are not shown to have been ordered filed by the trial court in the cause as a part of the record proper, and cannot therefore be shown in the record proper, and are improperly inserted therein.\n\u201c(2) That they are not included in any authenticated bill of exceptions, and are not included in or covered by the certificate of the trial judge settling and signing the bill of exceptions, and this court is without jurisdiction or authority to consider the same in any manner.\u201d\nThe clerk of the district court certifies that the papers referred to in said paragraph 2 of appellee\u2019s\u2019motion were filed in his office.\nOn the authority of Vosburg v. Carter, 33 N. M. 86, 262 P. 176, the motion is overruled as to the papers referred to in sub-paragraphs (1), (3), and (5).\nAs to the papers referred to in subparagraphs (2) and (4) of said second paragraph of the motion, the same is sustained, we being unable to find them embraced among \u201cpapers regularly filed in a cause with the clerk of the district court,\u201d as defined in Territory v. McGrath, 16 N. M. 202, 114 P. 364, as \u201cinclude onty such papers which by statute, or rule, or order of court' are required or directed to be filed,\u201d and it is so ordered.\nPARKER, C. J., and WATSON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BICKLEY, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reese & Reese and Ed S. Gibbany, all of Roswell, for appellant.",
      "L. O. Fullen, of Roswell, for appellee Ward.",
      "J. H. Jackson, of Artesia, for appellee Brainard-Corbin Plardware Co.",
      "Geo. U. McCrary, of Artesia, for appellee Mann."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3242.\nNov. 19, 1927.]\nPERSHING v. WARD et al.\n[262 Pac. 177.]\nReese & Reese and Ed S. Gibbany, all of Roswell, for appellant.\nL. O. Fullen, of Roswell, for appellee Ward.\nJ. H. Jackson, of Artesia, for appellee Brainard-Corbin Plardware Co.\nGeo. U. McCrary, of Artesia, for appellee Mann."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 108
}