New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1916-08-18
hat Receivership.

ne examination lnIO LHe di'
fairs of the receivership of thu
New Mexico Central railroad ha:
been taking the attention o
Judge Edmund C. Abbott during
the present week, the occasion O.
the submission of the evidence
being the petition for the remova
of Receiver Ralph c. Ely. Col
E. W. Dobson appeared for the
petitioners, with Neil B. Fielc
representing some clients, while
Attorney General Clancy repre-
sented Mr.. Ely as the attorney
for the N. NJ. C. and Frank
Lavan was present as counsel.
The question of the dismantling
of the road was one Of the features
beside the offering of testimony
as to the use of money by the re-
ceiver and the present condition
of the affairs. After the conclu-
sion of the testimony, a motion
was made by Mr.. Clancy to dis
miss the petition, but Judge
Abbott denied the motion,
SAYING that he wanted to have a
transcript of the whole testimony
made and he would review it be-
fore making a decision, and that
he desired to 90 overthe line OF the
New Mexico railroad on an ms
pection trip, to see for himself
the condition of the road.
Supreme Court Opinions.
The supreme court last week
handed down the following OPT
Mons:
The Halford ] itch Co., plain
tiff in error VS.. The Independent
Ditch Co., defendent in error,
Nc. 1876, San Juan county
This is an injunction suit brougt
by plaintiff in error to restrain
the defendent in error from doing
any of the acts complained of in
the bill OF complaint and for
damages.
Wherefore the court ordered
that the plaintiff and defendent
companies are entitled to the
Joint control, management and
maintenance of the said joint
ditch to the lower line Of the Co
burn place in proportion to their
respective interests therein, upon
judgement being entered this
of error was sued out.
Judgement of the curt below
affirmed.
Syllabus of the Court
|. In trials before the court
the erroneous admission of testi-
mony will afford no ground for
reversal unless it appears that the
court considered such testimony
in deciding the case.
2. Where two or more COM
munltyEditches take water from a
common ditch or head, and the
lower ditch has enlarged the up
per one either by reason of a con-
tract with the upper ditch or by
reason of the common consent
and acquiescence OF the water
right owners in said upper ditch
the lower ditch becomes a tenant
in common with the upper ditch
in the common structure and as
such is entitled to the joint ma
nagement and control of the same
in so far as the Joint maintenance
of the ditch is concerned.
Opinion by Parker, j. Roberts
c. J. Hanna, j. concurring.
Socorro County Case.
Ben F. Gooch, appellee, VS.,
Henry Coleman, appellant. No.
1919. Socorro county.
This is the action of an appellee
against appellant to recover the
sum $1,000 as damages for an al
legged breach of a certain contract
for sale of400 head Of cattle. I'm
der a peremptory instruction by
the court, the jury returne5 a
verdict for appellee in the sum of
$1,O72.O5, which was the amount
of the forfeit money with inter
est.
The consideration of the sal
of the cattle referred to was ex-
pressed in the contract 2s $14,
$50 the cattle to be delivered ON
board cars and to be of good
grade of stock etc.
The court refused to direct the
jury to include in the verdict the
difference between the contract
pyioa and tho markat prico at tho