{
  "id": 5321995,
  "name": "Henry J. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Boyd W. WEST and Helen M. West, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hughes v. West",
  "decision_date": "1967-07-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 8360",
  "first_page": "281",
  "last_page": "282",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.M. 281"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "430 P.2d 778"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 N.M. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5374573
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "173"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 735",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8504809
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0735-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. M. 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2801301
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0755-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322286
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.M. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2850482
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/70/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 F.2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        983045
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/100/0486-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2268,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.669,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30471660702998515
    },
    "sha256": "5b277021ba3aba48f4585bf2b900a039f1e4386b0d716d6a92910e67f476aa85",
    "simhash": "1:19a3f6a22d54e8e4",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:10.359171+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "COMPTON, J., and WALDO SPIESS, J., Court of Appeals, concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Henry J. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Boyd W. WEST and Helen M. West, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCARMODY, Justice.\nThis appeal is solely from a judgment awarding costs to the plaintiff in a suit to quiet title. The defendants object to the assessment against them of the entire filing fee of $12.50, the service fee upon two witnesses of $6.00, and an award of an expert-witness fee in the sum of $104.00.\nThe statute, \u00a7 22-14-7, N.M.S.A. 1953, insofar as is pertinent here, provides that the defendant in a suit to quiet title, if he appears and disclaims, shall recover his costs; then the section reads, \u201cand in all other cases the costs shall be in the discretion of the court.\u201d It is not contended that the defendants disclaimed; therefore, the awarding of costs was in the discretion of the trial court. Cf., Corman v. Cree (10th Cir. 1938), 100 F.2d 486.\nDefendants seem to contend, particularly with reference to the award of the expert-witness fee, that the calling of the expert (who was a surveyor) was unnecessary, because the plat prepared by the expert had been stipulated to by the parties. The trial court stated that it wanted' to have the benefit of the expert\u2019s testimony, \u201ceven in spite of the stipulation.\u201dIn view of this statement and other matters appearing in the record which we need not relate, we do not feel that there was-an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding this fee or the other items assessed. Under the statute and our cases, the assessing of costs is discretionary, with the trial court. Mills v. Southwest Builders, Inc., 1962, 70 N.M. 407, 374 P.2d 289; Farmers Gin Company v. Ward, 1964, 73 N.M. 405, 389 P.2d 9; Lanier v. Securities Acceptance Corporation, 1965, 74 N. M. 755, 398 P.2d 980; Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank, 1966, 76 N.M. 735, 418 P.2d 191. And we note with approval the special concurring opinion by Justice Moise in Danielson v. Miller, 1965, 75 N.M. 170, at 173, 402 P.2d 153, as esp\u00e9cially apropos here.\nThe judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, J., and WALDO SPIESS, J., Court of Appeals, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CARMODY, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Manuel A. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellants.",
      "Mat\u00edas A. Zamora, Santa Fe, for appel-lee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "430 P.2d 778\nHenry J. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Boyd W. WEST and Helen M. West, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 8360.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 31, 1967.\nManuel A. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellants.\nMat\u00edas A. Zamora, Santa Fe, for appel-lee."
  },
  "file_name": "0281-01",
  "first_page_order": 321,
  "last_page_order": 322
}