Case ID: nm_32/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PARKER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3187,
    Jan. 26, 1927]
    CLARK v. MAISEN
    [255 Pac. 404]
    SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
    1. Findings of fact and conclusions of law, made and refused by the court, are not. a part of the record proper, unless ordered by the court to be filed in the clerk’s office.
    2. A paper filed in the clerk’s office purporting to be a statement of facts, but bearing no authenticity from an order of the court, cannot be considered by this court on appeal.
    
       40J p. 159 n. 62. f2] 4CJ p. 443 n. 44. [31 40J p. 505 n. 84.
    Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County, Helmick, Judge.
    Action by J. Lewis Clark against H. A. Maisen. Prom an appeal for defendant, plaintiff appeals. On motion to strike from the transcript special findings given and refused, and a paper entitled “Statement of Pacts. ’ ’
    Motion granted.
    John Baron Burg and J. Lewis Clark, both of Albuquerque, for appellant.
    Simms & Botts, of Albuquerque, for appellee.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PARKER, C. J.

A motion is presented to strike from the transcript the special findings given and refused, and a paper entitled “Statement of Pacts,” upon the ground that they are not a part of the record proper and are not included in any bill of exceptions. The findings and conclusions of the trial court, made and refused, are not a part of the record proper, unless ordered by the court to be filed with the clerk, which was not done. Gradi v. Bachechi, 24 N. M. 100, 172 P. 188.

The statement of facts, so.called, is a paper filed by appellant in the clerk’s office, and appearing in the transcript, having no authenticity whatever, was never passed on by the judge, and was never made a part of the record by any order of the district court. This paper cannot be considered by us. Loftus v. Johnson, 23 N. M. 546, 170 P. 49.

It follows that the motion to strike the two papers mentioned should be granted, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.