{ "id": 1586513, "name": "HOFFMAN v. WHITE et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Hoffman v. White", "decision_date": "1932-08-01", "docket_number": "No. 3724", "first_page": "250", "last_page": "253", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "36 N.M. 250" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "13 P.2d 553" } ], "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": "157 P. 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 2335618, 2335627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/52/0328-01", "/mont/52/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Mont. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2335627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/52/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Mont. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2334421 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/51/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 P. 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Mont. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 P. 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Mont. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 2280941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/10/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 P. 997", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 1552961, 1552982 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "999" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/32/0225-01", "/nm/32/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 N. M. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552961 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/32/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 N. M. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557886 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0491-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 409, "char_count": 7379, "ocr_confidence": 0.464, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.05945114946855975 }, "sha256": "0717219c61cd701be7bc1108143fa3963f3c0ba251625005e112aa236df7dbf0", "simhash": "1:4221cb33d2143c7f", "word_count": 1269 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:15.491223+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BIOKLEY, C. J., and SADLER, J., concur.", "PARKER and HUDSPETH, JJ., did not participate." ], "parties": [ "HOFFMAN v. WHITE et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WATSON, J.\nThis appeal is from an order overruling a motion to vacate a final judgment, rendered in a cause pending in Chaves county, in the Fifth judicial district\nThe ground of the motion was: \u201cSaid judgment was not signed by a judge in the fifth judicial district of the State of New Mexico, but was signed at Clovis, New Mexico, in the ninth judicial district * * * by Hon. Harry L. Patton, Judge of said district\u201d\nAppellants were defendants in the cause and had failed to plead. A clerk\u2019s certificate of such failure having been filed, counsel for plaintiff drafted a judgment and procured the clerk to send it to Judge Patton, with all papers in the case, including the note and mortgage sued on. At Clovis, in the Ninth district, Judge Patton, as \u201cjudge of the ninth judicial district * * * sitting and acting for, and at the request of Hon. G. A. Richardson, Judge of the fifth judicial district, * * * \u201d signed the judgment. It was filed and entered of record the following day.\nAppellee relies upon constitutional and statutory provisions and upon a written request of the resident judge, to sustain the validity of this proceeding.\nN. M. Const, art. 6, \u00a7 15, provides: \u201cAny district judge may hold district court in \u00bfny county at the request of the judge of such district.\u201d\n1929 Comp. St. \u00a7 105-801 provides: \u201cAny judgment, or decree, except in cases where trial by jury is necessary, may be rendered by the judge of the district court at any place where he may be in this state. * * * \u201d\nJudge Richardson\u2019s request was as follows:\n\u201cJudge Harry L. Patton, presiding judge of the ninth judicial district of the State of New Mexico, is hereby requested by me to assist me with the business of the district court within and for the fifth judicial district of the State of New Mexico, beginning May 21, 1931, and continuing until the business is completed.\n\u201cDone at Roswell, New Mexico, this 20th day of May, 1931. G. A. Richardson, Judge of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico.\u201d\nWe consider it settled that if this Chaves county judgment had been rendered at Clovis by Judge Richardson, it would have been good. Singleton v. Sanabrea, 35 N. M. 491, 2 P.(2d) 119.\nWe have held that the power of the resident judge to request another judge \u201cto hold district court\u201d includes the power of designation \u201cto perform any judicial act.\u201d First State Bank of Alamogordo v. McNew, 32 N. M. 225, 252 P. 997, 999.\nIt would seem to follow that any judicial act which Judge Richardson might do, he could designate Judge Patton to perform.\nThe objection of appellants to this logical conclusion depends upon strict construction of Constitution and statute. Emphasizing the preposition \u201cin,\u201d it is contended that the constitutional power of requested judges may be exercised only in the county where the litigation is planted. With emphasis on the article \u201cthe,\u201d it is contended that the statute authorizes the resident judge only to render judgment elsewhere than in the county of the litigation.\nThis would result that Judge Richardson, residing at Roswell,\u25a0 may there render judgment in a certain class of Eddy county cases, but that Judge Patton, residing at Clovis, and acting for Judge Richardson, must go to Carlsbad to do the same thing. Such result was probably foreign to the intent of the Constitution makers and legislators.\nUnder the general scheme of the Constitution, the district judges were to hold court and to perform such judicial acts as were required in and for their respective districts. The purpose of article 6, \u00a7 15, was to permit another than the resident judge to hold court and perform judicial acts. We perceive and can imagine no purpose to require the requested or designated judge to be present in the county to do what the judge in and for the district might do outside the county.\nPor the dispatch and economy of judicial business, the statute permits judgments to be rendered outside the county of the litigation. We do not interpret the expression \u201cthe judge of the district court\u201d as meaning anything more than \u201cdistrict judges.\u201d The-statute merely classifies the rendition of judgment in certain cases as an act of the judge, which he may perform anywhere in the state, rather than an act of the court duly sitting and attended.\nAppellants\u2019 reliance for authority is on certain Montana decisions. In Wallace v. Helena Electric Railway Co., 10 Mont. 24, 24 P. 626, on rehearing 10 Mont. 31, 25 P. 278, the visiting judge, presiding in the court at the request of the resident judge, who was not absent or incapacitated, assumed to issue an injunction at chambers without having been designated for that purpose. In State ex rel. Mannix v. District Court, 51 Mont. 310, 152 P. 753, the visiting judge, presiding under a general designation, made an order in a pending cause which evidently came up in the regular course. After he had ceased to preside in that court, he assumed that, by reason of the order he had made, he had jurisdiction to continue to make orders in and to dispose of the cause. In Eustance v. Francis, 52 Mont. 295, 157 P. 573, the judge designated to try the particular case assumed -to do in his own chambers, outside the county, what the resident judge could not have done in his chambers, within the county.\nWe have no occasion to question the correctness of any of these decisions, and we do not. Some language of the opinions suggests strict construction of Constitution and statute. We doubt if the expressions relied on by appellant had important bearing on the results. At any rate, we are already committed to the doctrine that, within the limits of the request or designation, the visiting judge has all the judicial powers of the resident judge.\nThe particular request here is that Judge Patton assist Judge Richardson with the business of the latter\u2019s district. Prom the time of this request until after rendition of this judgment, Judge Richardson was absent from the state. So, Judge Patton was not to try any particular case nor to hold any particular term of court. He was to attend to Judge Richardson\u2019s judicial business. If that business required his presence in Chaves county, Judge Patton must, of course, go there. But, if it was business that Judge Richardson himself could have attended to in Clovis, we think that Judge Patton could attend to it there.\nPointing to the expression \u201cwithin and for,\u201d appellants suggest that Judge Richardson himself limited Judge Patton\u2019s power, requiring by inference that the latter come into the district to attend to any business. We are not so persuaded. In the first place, one district judge would not assume to direct another how to perform his judicial duties. In the second place, he probably could not legally do so. He could designate the business to be attended to, but how that business is to be attended to and how disposed of each judge will determine for himself, guided by the law. And, finally, we perceive nothing in the language used reasonably to suggest any such purpose.\nWe are constrained to affirm the judgment and to remand the cause. It is so. ordered.\nBIOKLEY, C. J., and SADLER, J., concur.\nPARKER and HUDSPETH, JJ., did not participate.", "type": "majority", "author": "WATSON, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hervey, Dow, Hill & Hinkle, of Roswell, for appellants.", "O. E. Little, of Roswell, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "13 P.(2d) 553\nHOFFMAN v. WHITE et al.\nNo. 3724.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 1, 1932.\nHervey, Dow, Hill & Hinkle, of Roswell, for appellants.\nO. E. Little, of Roswell, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0250-01", "first_page_order": 278, "last_page_order": 281 }