{
  "id": 1569739,
  "name": "STERLING v. BURRAN et ux.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sterling v. Burran",
  "decision_date": "1938-01-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 4338",
  "first_page": "216",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.M. 216"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "76 P.2d 469"
    }
  ],
  "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. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 N.M. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586521
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/36/0188-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1122,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.658,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5203747399944939
    },
    "sha256": "ef47626fc85f4f4f61be53cc7f6421d270aeb56d39b50ff96a762d81acd92f34",
    "simhash": "1:18e217b63ac0234f",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:45.542828+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SADLER, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.",
      "HUDSPETH, C. J., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STERLING v. BURRAN et ux."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRICE, Justice.\nThe appellant (plaintiff below) filed an. action of replevin to recover possession of certain cattle. The case was tried to the court and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, but for only a part of such cattle. The plaintiff appealed.\nNo findings of fact were requested' or made by'the court. No ruling made during the progress of the trial was excepted to or objected to by the plaintiff. There was a general exception in the body of the judgment.\nThe court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties and there was no fundamental error. Under these circumstances there is no question for this court to review. Stidd v. Marks, 36 N.M. 188, 10 P.2d 1103; Reagan v. Dougherty, 40 N.M. 439, 62 P.2d 810. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSADLER, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.\nHUDSPETH, C. J., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRICE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. C. McCulloh, of Santa Fe, and H; B. Hamilton, of Santa Rosa, for appellant.",
      "John E. Hall, of Carrizozo, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "76 P.2d 469\nSTERLING v. BURRAN et ux.\nNo. 4338.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJan. 17, 1938.\nRehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1938.\nC. C. McCulloh, of Santa Fe, and H; B. Hamilton, of Santa Rosa, for appellant.\nJohn E. Hall, of Carrizozo, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0216-01",
  "first_page_order": 240,
  "last_page_order": 241
}