Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-07-22
HARRISON VS.. PEREA.
Important Case, Involving the Estate
of Jose LeandrO Perea, Deceased,
Decided by Judge LaughIin.

The following case has been pending in
the district courts of Bernalillo and Santa
Fe counties for many years and on yester-
day was decided by Judge Laughln, the
case coming before Judge Langhlin on a
change of venue. It is entitled "Guadalupe
Harrison ct al vs. Jesus Maria Perea ct al
and the heirs of Jose Leandro Perea." The
case came up on the petition for reac-
counting and redistribution of the estate
and to set aside the final report and final
distribution of the administrators, Jose
NJ. Perea, Mariana Perea, and Pedro
Perea, and vacate the order of the probate
court of Bernalillo county, discharging
the administrators, said order having
been made on December IL, 1885. Petit
TONERS represented by w. B. Childers,
esq, of Albuquerque.
The defendants, except Mariana Osero
and wife and Sidney Hubbell and wife,
who appeared and answered the bill by
separate counsel, appeared by counsel,
I. B. Catron, esq, of Santa Fe, and filed
demurrer to bill. The first ground raised
in the demurrer and passed upon by the
Compiled Laws, the Probate court had
exclusive original jurisdiction, and that
therefore the District court was without
any equity jurisdiction to hear and deter
nine the cause. This ground of the de-
murrer was overruled under the authority
of decision of the New Mexico Supreme
court, Perea vs. Barela, Fifth New Mex
loo, 1853.
The next ground raised in the
demurrer and passed upon by
the court was, that the bill was multifari
GUS in that it sought to recover against
one of the defendants, Pedro Perea, indi-
vidually, of certain real estate which it
was alleged in the bill said defendant had
recovered in his own name, sold part
thereof and now claims the remainder as
his individual property. The demurrer
on this ground was sustained.
The next ground raised by the demur-
rer and passed upon by the court was on
the allegation in the bill that Justo Ar
milo was probate judge of Bernalillo
county from January l, 1885, to January
l, 1897, that he was the husband of Bea-
triz Perea de Armijo who was daughter
Of the deceased and one heir at law and
one of the distributes of this estate, and
that during Justo Armijo's term as Judge
of probate he acted as such Judge in all
matters pertaining to the said estate, and
that he and wife, Beatriz, received their
shares from time to time, and that on
December IL, 1886, while so acting as
probate Judge the administrators made
their final report, settlement and distri.
IN nf ho 70 nd
made by him discharging the administra-
tors and their original bond as such ad-
illustrators delivered to them, all OF
which the bill charged was negotiable,
fraudulent and void, in that said Justo
Armijo, acting as probate judge was dis
qualified to act in that capacity because
he was directly interested in the estate
and in the result of the administration
thereon and distribution thereof; the de-
PENDANTS commended that If said Justo Ar
ito was disqualified to act as probate
Judge in matters pertaining to the estate
in question, that then his acts are void
and that therefore the estate is still pend.
ing for administration in the Probate
court of Bernalillo county and that the
District court has nothing to act upon.
This contention of the defendants was
sustained by the oourt and the bill dis
missed on the ground that said Justo Ar.
milo was disqualified to act as probate
Judge in the estate in which himself and
wife we're directly interested, the court
holding that the administrators we're not
legally discharged by the said probate
judge and that the estate is still pending
In the Probate court Of Bernalillo county
for final settlement and distribution.