Case ID: nm_34/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3475.
    Nov. 18, 1929.]
    CONLEY v. DAVIDSON.
    [283 Pac. 52.]
    Reid, Hervey & Iden, of Albuquerque, for appellant.
    O. E. Little, of Roswell, for appellee.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellee moves dismissal of this, appeal on the sole ground that the five days’ notice required by App. Proc. Rule V, § 1, was riot given. ■ He showed no prejudice, and the notice omitted is not jurisdictional. We have therefore overruled the motion, under App. Proc. Rule XIV, § 3.

It is so ordered.

PARKER and CATRON, JJ., did not participate.