{ "id": 2768435, "name": "POSTAL FINANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete SISNEROS, Jr. and Margaret E. Sisneros, his wife, Defendants, v. STATE of New Mexico, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION. Garnishee-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Postal Finance Co. v. Sisneros", "decision_date": "1973-03-09", "docket_number": "No. 9541", "first_page": "724", "last_page": "726", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 N.M. 724" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "507 P.2d 785" } ], "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": "63 N.M. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2776087 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/63/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2803452 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 N.M. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1580758 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/53/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 P. 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.M. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4735385 ], "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/25/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 N.M. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1551495 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/31/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 U.S. 357", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3935252 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/242/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "236 F. 444", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6744849 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/236/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 U.S. 215", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1499468 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1905, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/198/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565200 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 388, "char_count": 5641, "ocr_confidence": 0.674, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7765922776796143e-07, "percentile": 0.7128714840131606 }, "sha256": "17a215ad81d58e5229a5ba225b4f39500cde039506f1d3da979b3a78c5d92537", "simhash": "1:591448cb24af1046", "word_count": 899 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:55.751115+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "STEPHENSON and MARTINEZ, JJ\u201e concur." ], "parties": [ "POSTAL FINANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete SISNEROS, Jr. and Margaret E. Sisneros, his wife, Defendants, v. STATE of New Mexico, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION. Garnishee-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nMcMANUS, Chief Justice.\n. Plaintiff, Postal Finance Company, filed suit in the District Court of Bernalillo County to recover an unpaid debt from Sisneros, defendant. After a hearing, the court entered its judgment in the amount of $544.92 in favor of plaintiff. Postal Finance Company applied for a writ of garnishment against garnishee, State of New Mexico, Department of Finance and Administration. The same district court issued its judgment ordering garnishee to pay the principal amount of the initial judgment plus costs and attorney fees. Garnishee appeals.\nAppellant bases its appeal on the theory that the District Court of Bernalillo County does not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of garnishment where the unpaid balance of a judgment does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of the several magistrate courts having venue in Bernalillo County.\nArticle VI, \u00a7 13, of the New Mexico Constitution, provides in part:\n\u201cThe district court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters and causes not excepted in this Constitution, and such jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings as may be conferred by law, and appellate jurisdiction of all cases originating in inferior courts and tribunals in their respective districts, and supervisory control over the same. The district courts, or any judge thereof, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, injunction, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and all other writs, remedial or otherwise in the exercise of their jurisdiction; provided, that no such writs shall issue directed to judges or courts of equal or superior jurisdiction.\u201d\nAppellant claims that garnishment is a \u201cspecial case or proceeding\u201d; that therefore garnishment jurisdiction of the district court is conferred by law; that the applicable statute, \u00a7 36-14-16, N.M.S.A. 1953, only gives the district court jurisdiction if the debt or sum claimed exceeds the jurisdictional amount of any magistrate court having venue within the county in which the district court is located; and that the result of \u00a7 36-3-3, N.M.S.A. 1953, is a jurisdictional limit of $2,000 for magistrate courts of the Bernalillo district.\nOn the other hand, appellee believes that a writ of garnishment is \"remedial\u201d; that garnishment is an ancillary remedy to the main action over which fhe district court had jurisdiction; and that district courts therefore have the constitutional power to issue such a writ \u201cin the exercise of their jurisdiction.\u201d\nIt is true that garnishment is a special proceeding. This court, in In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204, 113 P.2d 582 (1941), defined special statutory proceedings as those \u201cunknown to the common law.\u201d Generally, the remedy of garnishment was considered not to exist at common law and is now regarded as in derogation of the common law. See Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023 (1905); Loewe v. Savings Bank of Danbury, 236 F. 444 (2nd Cir. 1916), aff\u2019d, 242 U.S. 357, 37 S.Ct. 172, 61 L.Ed. 360 (1917). At least eight states have declared garnishment to be special, summary, or extraordinary proceedings : Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. See 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, \u00a7 9 (1963), footnote 15.\nIt is also true that garnishment is a remedial writ, ancillary to the main action. Mayo v. George, 31 N.M. 593, 248 P. 885 (1926); Geren v. Lawson, 25 N.M. 415, 184 P. 216 (1919). It may properly be included in the general category, \u201call other writs, remedial or otherwise.\u201d\nWhere possible, each and every part of the statute must be given some effect in an effort to reconcile it in meaning with every other part. Cox v. City of Albuquerque, 53 N.M. 334, 207 P.2d 1017 (1949). The usual principles governing the construction of statutes also apply to the interpretation of constitutions. State v. City of Aztec, 77 N.M. 524, 424 P.2d 801 (1967). In the case before us it is possible to construe the two provisions in such a way that both are given effect and arc brought into harmony.\nBecause the first provision is directed specifically to \u201cspecial cases and proceedings\u201d and the second provision is directed in more general language to \u201call other writs, remedial or otherwise,\u201d wc apply the rule that general language of a statute will be limited by specific language. State v. Morley, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317 (1957).\nTherefore, we hold that the district courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of garnishment in the exercise of their jurisdiction in the main action to the extent that jurisdiction over such special proceedings as garnishment is conferred by law. What district court jurisdiction over garnishment proceedings has been conferred by law? That which appears in \u00a7 36-14\u2014 16, supra.\nIn this case the District Court of Bernalillo County did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ because the amount in question, $544.92, was not in excess of the jurisdictional amount of magistrate courts having venue within Bernalillo County, $2,000.\nReversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the proceedings.\nIt is so ordered.\nSTEPHENSON and MARTINEZ, JJ\u201e concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McMANUS, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Dunigan, Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for garnishee-appellant.", "Cotter, Atkinson, Campbell & Kelsey, John M. Kulikowski, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "507 P.2d 785\nPOSTAL FINANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete SISNEROS, Jr. and Margaret E. Sisneros, his wife, Defendants, v. STATE of New Mexico, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION. Garnishee-Appellant.\nNo. 9541.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 9, 1973.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Dunigan, Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for garnishee-appellant.\nCotter, Atkinson, Campbell & Kelsey, John M. Kulikowski, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0724-01", "first_page_order": 880, "last_page_order": 882 }