{
  "id": 1571459,
  "name": "WARDER et al. v. SHUFELDT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warder v. Shufeldt",
  "decision_date": "1937-09-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 4116",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.M. 507"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "71 P.2d 653"
    }
  ],
  "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": "40 N.M. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842229
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 P. 1174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.M. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4692826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/18/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 P. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.M. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        208896
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/17/0159-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05874744048784311
    },
    "sha256": "cfad772f9048de37ae95a742cb501f2cfa20879e08f196161c9f6a843a71e6e0",
    "simhash": "1:ba438e9019e16d7e",
    "word_count": 558
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:24.817176+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HUDSPETH, C. J., and SADLER, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WARDER et al. v. SHUFELDT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRICE, Justice.\nA motion has been filed in this cause to recall the mandate and to strike therefrom the certificate of costs of the district clerk. The mandate was issued on December 7, 1936, but seems not to have been filed in the district court until in the month of April, 1937. There was filed in this court in December, 1936, a certificate of costs made by the clerk of the district court for costs of transcript $283.15. The cost was indorsed on the mandate as follows:\n\u201cCosts taxed in favor of appellant as follows:\nTranscripts.................... $283.15\nSupreme Court Clerk\u2019s costs..... 20.Q0\n$303.15\u201d\nIt will be observed that no costs were taxed except for transcripts, $283.15, and $20 Supreme Court costs.\nThe following rules of 1928 with reference to costs were in force at that time:\nSec. 3. \u201cThe clerk of the district court shall be allowed 10^ per folio for making out and certifying the original copy of the record on appeal or writ of error and 3\u2021 per folio for each additional.copy thereof required and he shall be allowed $2.00 for certifying the bill of exceptions which may have been furnished by the stenographer, to be paid by the party _ suing out the writ of error or taking the appeal.\u201d\nSec. 4. \u201cThe stenographer shall be compensated for taking down testimony (except testimony taken in term time, where the court stenographer acts) at the rate of ten dollars per day, and shall be allowed for transcribing the same fifteen cents per folio for the original copy, and five per folio for each additional copy.\u201d\nSec. 8. \u201cExcept as otherwise provided, the following shall be taxed as costs:\n\u201c(1) For preparing and filing three transcripts of record at 16 cents per folio thereof, and 15 cents per folio additional for transcript of stenographer\u2019s notes contained therein.\n\u201c(2) Clerk\u2019s fees as prescribed by statute.\n\u201c(3) For binding record under section 7 of this rule.\u201d\nRule 19, sections 3, 4, and 8.\nThere was no provision in the rules of 1928 for certification of costs by the district clerk, as there is now, and as there was before the adoption of the rules of 1928; for which reason the cases of Dailey v. Fitzgerald, 17 N.M. 159, 130 P. 247, and State v. Board of Education, 18 N.M. 286, 135 P. 1174, are not authority in this case. Under the rules that apply the clerk of the Supreme Court was authorized to tax the costs for preparing and filing three transcripts of the record at 16 cents per folio and 15 cents pet folio additional for transcript of stenographer\u2019s notes contained therein. It is presumed that this was the charge objected to.\nThe judgment provided for the taxing of costs against appellee, and rule 19 provided what costs should be taxed. The clerk was authorized to tax such costs in this court.\nThe motion will be denied.\nIt is so ordered.\nHUDSPETH, C. J., and SADLER, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRICE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. O. Seth, of Santa F\u00e9, and J. R. Mod-rail and Waldo Spiess, both of Las Vegas, for appellant.",
      "A. T. Rogers, Jr., of Las Vegas, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "71 P.(2d) 653\nWARDER et al. v. SHUFELDT.\nNo. 4116.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 7, 1937.\nFor former opinion, see 40 N.M. 442, 62 P. (2d) 812.\nJ. O. Seth, of Santa F\u00e9, and J. R. Mod-rail and Waldo Spiess, both of Las Vegas, for appellant.\nA. T. Rogers, Jr., of Las Vegas, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 537,
  "last_page_order": 539
}