{ "id": 2381935, "name": "JAMES S. JARRELL, Appellant, v. R. F. BARNETT, ASSIGNEE OF W. C. BIRD & CO., Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Jarrell v. Barnett", "decision_date": "1897-10-02", "docket_number": "No. 675", "first_page": "254", "last_page": "255", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "9 N.M. 254" } ], "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": "1 S. W. Rep. 736", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 Wheat. 19", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "case_ids": [ 1429901 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/25/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Pac. Rep. 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 Me. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Johns. Ch. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Ch.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Yer.", "case_ids": [ 8541597 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/18/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N. M. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4659584 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/7/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N. M. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4657606 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/7/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N. M. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4659584 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/7/0630-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 283, "char_count": 3324, "ocr_confidence": 0.45, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.36356347416393775 }, "sha256": "c6e65b12e937fc735f2ef3436a42f41aaf529486cea2217f4cb3ab65029278b6", "simhash": "1:e35f15b6db8593b9", "word_count": 612 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:15.441645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Smith, O. J., and Bantz and Collier, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "JAMES S. JARRELL, Appellant, v. R. F. BARNETT, ASSIGNEE OF W. C. BIRD & CO., Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LATJQ-HLIN, J.\nThe appellant and complainant below, James S. Jarrell, filed his bill of complaint against appellee, respondent below, R. E. Barnett, as assignee of W. O. Bird & Co., and prayed that the sum of $112.38 be declared a preferred lien by appellee, as assignee of said Bird & Co.\u2019s estate, as a landlord\u2019s lien for rent of a building at Roswell, rented by said Jarrell to said Bird & Co. for use as a saloon.\nBird & Oo. failed, and made an assignment to said Barnett. Issue was joined by answer and replication, and the case was then referred to O. A. Keith, Esq., as sPecial master, and he reported to the court that all the rent had been paid, and that nothing was then due from said Bird & Co. to said Jarrell. The special master was directed by the court to take the proofs in the case on the issues joined, and find, first, \u201cthe amount due plaintiff for rent up to the time of the bringing of the suit.\u201d The special master found and reported as a fact that Bird & Co. paid complainant, Jarrell, all money due him before the time of the filing of this suit, and the court below confirmed the report, and entered a decree accordingly. The case was referred to the special master by consent of all parties, and his findings on the disputed facts on the evidence produced before him have the same force and effect as the special verdict of a jury. Field v. Romero, 7 N. M. 630; De Cordova v. Korte, 7 N. M. 678. There is nothing else to be considered in this case. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nSmith, O. J., and Bantz and Collier, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LATJQ-HLIN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "James A. Poagke for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "[No. 675.\nOctober 2, 1897.]\nJAMES S. JARRELL, Appellant, v. R. F. BARNETT, ASSIGNEE OF W. C. BIRD & CO., Appellee.\nEquity Practice \u2014 Findings oe Fact by Master. \u2014 The findings of a, special master in chancery on disputed facts referred to him, have the same force and effect as the special verdict of a jury. Field v. Homero, 7 N. M. 630; De Cordova v. Korte, Id. 678.\nAppeal, from ,a decree for respondent, from the Eifth Judicial District Oonrt, Chavez County.\nAffirmed.\nThe facts are stated in the opinion of the court.\nJames A. Poagke for appellant.\nThe decree of reference is the limit of the special master\u2019s authority, and a finding by him on a matter not referred, and not raised in the pleading, should be ignored as null.\nThe assignment contains a recital of uncontradicted facts. Maury v. Lewis, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 115; Rawson v. Rawson, 2 Johns. Ch. 495; Simmons v. Jacobs, 52 Me. 14; Levart v. Red Wood, 9 Port. (Ala.) T9; White v. Walker, 5 Elor. T8; 1 Black on Judg.,sec. 44,note 101; 2 Id., sec. 641; Id., secs. 530, 532.\nThe special master had found that $112.38 of the claim was originally for rent, but it had been paid prior to the decree of reference, and prior to its allowance and approval by appellee. See authorities cited, supra.\nEor scope and duties of master see same cases.\nIn the judicial character of assignee\u2019s acts in allowing claims, and its force as res adjudicata, see Insolvent Laws, N. M. 1889, pp. 150-161, secs. 19-23, 36; Rubber Oo. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (N. Y.) 188; State v. Ins. Co., 5 Pac. Rep. 190; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488; Martin v. Mott,\u201912 Wheat. 19; Steele v. Smelting Co., 106 IT. S. 41; l\u00e9 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, head \u201cMaster in Equity;\u201d Epright v. Kauffman, 1 S. W. Rep. 736." }, "file_name": "0254-01", "first_page_order": 280, "last_page_order": 281 }