{
  "id": 2806173,
  "name": "GAC FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe M. RUBIDOEAUX, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "GAC Finance Corp. v. Rubidoeaux",
  "decision_date": "1964-07-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 7455",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "418",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.M. 417"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "394 P.2d 265"
    }
  ],
  "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": "106 A.L.R. 1007",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 P.2d 699",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "700"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 Wash. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        478465
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/187/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.W.2d 835",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "842"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.W. 1084",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "case_ids": [
        2578408,
        2579378,
        2579062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nd/13/0396-01",
        "/nd/13/0361-01",
        "/nd/13/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.D. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.D.",
      "case_ids": [
        2578408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nd/13/0396-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1956,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.689,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43702103867831676
    },
    "sha256": "1bf8fe259d4a5a548055d85ea6a2756c5265f0987aef21b11a9dce32fbeafd20",
    "simhash": "1:d4e91a213cbb0cca",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:44.283414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "COMPTON, C. J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GAC FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe M. RUBIDOEAUX, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "NOBLE, Justice.\nDefendant-appellant has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing defendant\u2019s appeal from a judgment by a justice of the peace.\nPlaintiff-appellee filed its claim against defendant for $200.00 before a justice of the peace who rendered judgment against him in plaintiff\u2019s favor for the sum of $200.00, with costs of $6.50, and garnishment costs of $10.00. Appellant has appeared here, as well as in the district court, pro se. Appellee has failed to file an answer brief as required by Supreme Court Rule 15. If appellant was represented by counsel, this appeal would be dismissed as de minimis.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal to the district court was solely upon the ground that Art. VI, Sec. 26, of the New Mexico Constitution limits the civil jurisdiction of justices of the peace to matters \u201cin which the debt or sum claimed\u201d shall not exceed $200.00, exclusive of interest, and that a justice of the peace is without jurisdiction to award a judgment which exceeds the $200.00 limit solely by the amount of the costs of the action.\nThe constitutional limitation on civil jurisdiction of justices of the peace is limited to the \u201cdebt or sum claimed.\u201d The words \u201cdebt or sum claimed,\u201d it is clear, were not intended by the constitution to be synonymous with \u201cjudgment.\u201d Marshall-Wells Hardware Co. v. New Era Coal Co., 13 N.D. 396, 100 N.W. 1084. Costs are a matter of statutory right to reimburse a successful litigant for expenses incurred in prosecuting or defending an action. Bruegge v. State Bank of Wellston (Mo.) 74 S.W.2d 835, 842; Bergman v. State, 187 Wash. 622, 60 P.2d 699, 700, 106 A.L.R. 1007.\nThe order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, C. J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "NOBLE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joe M. Rubidoeaux, pro se, appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "394 P.2d 265\nGAC FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe M. RUBIDOEAUX, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7455.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 27, 1964.\nJoe M. Rubidoeaux, pro se, appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 469,
  "last_page_order": 470
}