{ "id": 2715115, "name": "Burnick KEETER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GUADALUPE COUNTY, New Mexico, and American Employers' Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Keeter v. Board of County Commissioners", "decision_date": "1960-07-14", "docket_number": "No. 6620", "first_page": "201", "last_page": "204", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "67 N.M. 201" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "354 P.2d 135" } ], "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": "72 Ariz. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 5188409 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/72/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N.Y.S. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 App.Div. 791", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 3041577 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/193/0791-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N.E. 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.Y. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 294399 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/230/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.Y.S. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 5675886 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nys/106/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 App.Div. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 5288007 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/122/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Abb.Prac. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Abb. Pr.", "case_ids": [ 1886339 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/abb-pr/17/0315-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 334, "char_count": 4839, "ocr_confidence": 0.718, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.696253340611102e-08, "percentile": 0.4069513319116288 }, "sha256": "6834151fda185f8212c9e4cf74553bc8752302300ad8ee33e0f2450b5a345f17", "simhash": "1:3d54554f1eb84eda", "word_count": 805 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:20.009334+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "COMPTON, CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.", "MOISE, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Burnick KEETER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GUADALUPE COUNTY, New Mexico, and American Employers\u2019 Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGHEE, Chief Justice.\nThis case arose on stipulated facts, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff Keeter, from which defendants appeal.\nThe Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred ' to as Board, instituted a suit to condemn certain properties owned by Keeter to be used for highway purposes. On June 30, 1952, an order of immediate entry was entered and, as required by \u00a7 22-9-18, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., bond was posted with defendant American Employers\u2019 Insurance Company as surety. On July 9, 1953, judgment was entered confirming the proceeding and allowing Keeter damages in the amount of $24,650. This amount was paid on August 25, 1953, but the accrued interest allowed by our statute, \u00a7 22-9-9, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., was not paid.\nKeeter filed this suit in September, 1958, praying judgment against the Board and the surety for the unpaid interest.\nDefendants, in their first affirmative defense, pleaded that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, \u00a7 23-1-8, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.\nBefore discussing the merits of this contention, we pause to point out that there was a question raised on brief as to whether a second statute of limitations, \u00a7 23-1-4, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., was adequately raised below. This section was not pleaded and was therefore not properly before the court in addition to being, irrelevant.\nThe issue of a valid release or lawful agreement discharging the judgment is not before us. Aside from these \u2022occurrences, a judgment may be satisfied or discharged only by payment in full with accrued interest and costs. Freeman on Judgments, \u00a7 1118; Johnson v. Tuttle, 1863, 17 Abb.Prac. 315. See also Persons v. Gardner, 1907, 122 App.Div. 167, 106 N.Y.S. 616, and Crane v. Craig, 1921, 230 N.Y. 452, 130 N.E. 609, affirming, 1920, 193 App.Div. 791, 184 N.Y.S. 740. Therefore, it seems plain that a suit for interest accrued on a judgment is a suit on the judgment itself and governed by our general statute of limitations concerning judgments unless removed therefrom by some specific statute.\nOur statute of limitations on judgments, \u00a7 23-1-2, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., bars the action after seven (7) years, the instant case being brought well within this period, although it was after passage of the three (3)year or two (2) year periods provided in \u00a7 23-1-8.\nTherefore, we must examine \u00a7 23-1-8 and determine whether this section removed the type case now before us from within the purview of the general statute of limitations on judgments.\n\u00a7 23-1-8 reads:\n\u201cAction against sureties on official or fiduciary bonds \u2022\u2014 Two-year limitation \u2014 Actions against county or state officers \u2014 Injuries to person or reputation \u2014 Three-year limitation. \u2014 Those against sureties on official bonds * * * within [2] years after the liability of the principal or the person for whom they are sureties, shall have been finally established or determined by a judgment or decree of the court and those brought against any county or state officer for or on account of any liability incurred in the doing of any act in an official capacity or by the omission of any official duty and for an injury to the person or reputation of any person, within three [3] years.\u201d\nIt seems clear that the provision limiting actions against county or state officers is not applicable here since the action in the instant case was reduced to a judgment within the three year period, and this portion of the statute relates only to the cause of action and not to the judgment. Therefore the board\u2019s liability on the judgment is limited by the seven year provision in \u00a7 23-1-2.\nThe only question remaining is the liability of the sureties on their bond and this in turn depends on whether the bond is an \u201cofficial bond\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 23-1-8.\nSection 11-2-37 sets out the form to be used in an \u201cofficial bond.\u201d A reading of this statute solidifies our judgment that an \u201cofficial bond\u201d is one made payable to the State of New Mexico for its indemnification in case of wrongdoing on the part of the bonded person, and not one made payable to a private individual as was the case here. See Ward v. Johnson, 1951, 72 Ariz. 213, 232 P.2d 960.\nSince this was not an \u201cofficial bond\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 23-1-8, it follows that the action against the sureties was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations.\nFinding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and it is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.\nMOISE, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGHEE, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald A. Martinez, Las Vegas, for appellants.", "Roberto L. Armijo, Las Vegas, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "354 P.2d 135\nBurnick KEETER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GUADALUPE COUNTY, New Mexico, and American Employers\u2019 Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 6620.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 14, 1960.\nDonald A. Martinez, Las Vegas, for appellants.\nRoberto L. Armijo, Las Vegas, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0201-01", "first_page_order": 241, "last_page_order": 244 }