Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1915-11-18

passed over the governors veto, dis
tinguished from the present case
Fullen ". Fullen.
This IS suit for divorce, partition
of community property, tho establish
ment of rights to separate property
and for the custody of minor chill
dren in which defendant in error was
plaintiff, and plaintiff in error was
defendant
Judgment was rendered in the
court below against the plaintiff in
error, from which said judgment
plaintiff in error sued out this writ
of error to review said judgment
Judgment Of the court below re-
versed and remanded with directions
TO modify the decree to the extent Of
making available out of che fund pro-
vided for the children an amount suf-
ficient for their reasonable necessities
by way of support and education, as
asccrtained from the evidence in the
record. or if this is insufficient, from
further evidence to he taken by the
court. The decree as to all other re-
spects will be affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
/. Sections 4179. Also, code 1915,
interpreted, and held that an appn-
cation for judgment is not a motion
requiring five days notice, and that
where cause has been submitted
and taken under Amusement, the par
ties are entitled to notice for no par
ticular length Of time, as to the form
and substance of the judgment SO long
as opportunity is afforded to be heard
upon that subject, and to take eXcep-
tons TO the findings and conclusions,
and To propose others, so that their
respective contentious may be repre-
scented on the record
?. 1t is a fundamental rule of APP
pellate practice and procedure that
an appellate court win consider only
such questions as were raised i'm the
court below This rule has express
statutory sanction in this jurisdiction
Section 4506, code 1918.
g. Where there are two or more
separate and Independent causes of
action in a given case, there may be
as many separate and distinct final
judgments therein
4. In such a case. even in iuris-
dlctions where terms of court are pre-
served, the lapse of the term will not
deprive the court of jurisdiction Of
the cause, but simply of the Judgment
which was rendered rugint such
term, If 1t was a final judgment
s, In this jurisdiction by reason
of section 4lS5, code 1915, there are
no terms Of court except for jury
trials. and a Judgment which disposes
Of all, or one or more of the separate
and independent causes Of action in
the case, becomes final judgment upon
its rendition and entry. in the sense
that the same passes from the further
control of the court, and except a de-
fault judgment Section 4227, code
1915 and an irregularly entered judg
ment section 4230, code 1915, au1
except for such purposes as all courts
always retain control over their iudg
ments.
s. No relief will be afforded IN this
COURT rom findings Of fact made by
the trial court. which are supported
by substantial evidence.
z. The matters mentioned i'm the
seventh paragraph of the opinion re-
quire no decision Of any question Of
law
s. Where the court has found the
necessity TO exist for a provision for
the support Of minor children out of
the property of the parties to a d.
vorce proceeding, and where such pro-
vision is made in the decree il is err
ror to withhold from them the bene-
fits Of such provision until their re-
turn to the jurisdiction from which
they have been clandestinely removed
by the mother when the Withholding
Of such benefit is, apparently, by way
OF punishment Of the guilty mother
The measure Of the infants claims
upon the court and upon the funds
set aside Tor them is their necessities,
Independent Of any misconduct on the
part of either party TO the divorce
proceedings.
Opinion by Parker J., Roberts. G
j.. and Hanna, j., eoncurring.
In February, 1913. Ricardo As-ca-