{
  "id": 1556123,
  "name": "VALLES v. VIGIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Valles v. Vigil",
  "decision_date": "1929-10-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 3300",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "405",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.M. 404"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "281 P. 736"
    }
  ],
  "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": 124,
    "char_count": 1106,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.7,
    "sha256": "cf25b22c4398a85724a23917e8424d809451e8246954e0b145bb111ff12ad182",
    "simhash": "1:531b72a97e4c6938",
    "word_count": 188
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:24.898591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J., concur.",
      "CATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "VALLES v. VIGIL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nWATSON, J.\nThis is a suit to cancel for fraud a deed executed by appellant\u2019s wife to appellee. Judgment was entered upon appellee\u2019s motion at the close of appellant\u2019s evidence.\nOn the evidence admitted, the judgment is undoubtedly correct. Complaint is made of several rulings by which offered testimony was rejected. Though it is to be doubted if the admission of the rejected evidence would have changed the result, we have examined the record, and find the rulings sustainable on grounds pointed out in appellee\u2019s brief. It would serve no good purpose to detail them here.\nAnother contention is made; but, if it has merit, it cannot be considered, not having been brought to the attention of the trial court. It is fair to say that appellant\u2019s present counsel did not represent him below.\nFinding no error, we affirm the judgment. It is so ordered.\nBICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J., concur.\nCATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. A. Larrazolo, of Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "James G. Fitch, of Socorro, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3300.\nOct. 8, 1929.]\nVALLES v. VIGIL.\n[281 Pac. 736.]\nO. A. Larrazolo, of Albuquerque, for appellant.\nJames G. Fitch, of Socorro, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}