Genest v. Las Vegas Masonic Building Ass'n

Citations

• 11 N.M. 251
• 67 P. 743

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS.</p> <p>1. ' In an adjudication of lien under statutes of New Mexico, section 2216-2232, Compiled Laws, N. M., 1897, not purporting in any manner to be a personal judgment against any non-resident defendant substituted service of process by publication against such defendant is valid, the proceeding, as to such defendant, being in its character in rem.</p> <p>2. An attorney at law who is also a notary public in New Mexico may take the affidavit of his client or of his client’s agent upon which service of process by publication is based, it having for many years been the practice in New Mexico to do so and there being nothing in the law to prohibit it.</p> <p>3. Where it appears from the record that the officer before whom a lien claimant made the verification of his claim required by section 2221, C. L. of N. M., 1897, was a clerk of court of record of the State of Colorado and that such officer was by the laws of Colorado empowered to administer oaths generally in said State, the verification is sufficient.</p> <p>4. Where there is no dispute that a sub-contractor, lien claimant in good faith furnished material to be used, and that the m¿-terial was used in the construction of a particular building, and that such claimant’s lawful demand therefor remained unsatisfied, the filing of its claim of lien, when the building was substantially completed, there remaining to be done but seven or eight hours of one man’s work of ornamental carving on the outside of the building and the premises for several weeks theretofore being occupied for the purposes intended, is not premature, but is a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute that the claim shall be filed within sixty days after completion of the building.</p> <p>5. The objection that the cross-complaint should be stricken from the files because not signed by an attorney or counsellor of the court is not in apt time when not made until after answer of the merits of the cross-complaint and