Norment v. Mandell

Citations

• 19 N.M. 318
• 142 P. 926

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. The facts that the Attorney General’s office was in the sole charge of one of his assistants, owing to the enforced absence of the Attorney General and the other of his assistants, and that the office was overwhelmed with business, and that, owing to such circumstances, the Assistant Attorney Geiferal, in charge of the office, by inadvertence and oversight, failed to file assignments of error in time, do not amount to “good cause” for failure to file said assignments, within the terms of Section 21, Chapter 57, Laws 1909. Hubbell vs. Armijo, 133 Pac. 978, followed.</p> <p>P. 321</p> <p>2. Reliance upon an oral agreement with opposite counsel to the effect that additional time, if required, to perfect an appeal would be granted, which agreement is denied by opposite counsel is not good cause for failure to file assignments of error in time.</p> <p>P. 320</p> <p>3. The practice of rendering pro forma judgments in District Courts is condemned.</p> <p>P. 321</p>