El Nuevo mexicano., 1918-08-29
STATEMENTS AND SYLLABUS OF SEVEN
OPINIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT

Statements of the seven opinions
six civil, one criminal, handed dow
by the supreme court Tuesday after
noon are as follows:
In the case of Jas. w. Norment, q
al, appellees, VS.. Urna B. Turley, O
al, appellants, IN appeal from the
district court of Santa Fe county
the statement of facts is as follows.
This action was instituted in the
court below by appellees to fore
close the lien of a deed Of trust upon
certain property in the city of Santa
Fe. The trust deed was In the or
binary form and was made to secure
the payment of three promissory
notes; one for $4,000 and two for
$500 respectively. The complaint
alleged breach of the conditions of
the trust deed in that appellants had
failed and refused to pay the princi-
pal of the first note falling due and
to pay the taxes and insurance prem
iums. The answer Of appellants adj
mitted the failure to pay the said
principal but justified on the ground
that Norment and his wife, on the
one hand and Urna B. Turley and
her husband, on the other hand en-
tered into a contract of exchange Of
property, the terms of which c%ontroll-
ed the parties in the case at bar.
syllabus
1. Prior stipulations are merged
In the minal and formal contract ex-
ecuted by the parties, and this rule
applies to a deed or mortgage based
upon a contract to convey. When a
deed is delivered and accepted as
performance of the contract to con-
vey, the contract is merged in the
deed. Though the terms of the deed
may vary from those contained in
the contract, the deed alone must be
looked to to determine the rights of
the parties.
2. There is an exception to the
rule stated, which is that the con-
tract of conveyance Is not merged
upon execution of a deed where I'M
der the contract the rights are con-
ferred collaterally and independent
of the deed, there being no presump-
ton that the party in accepting the
deed intends to give up the covenants
of which the deed is not a perform
anee or satisfaction. Where the
right claimed under the contract
would vary. change or alter the
agreement in the deed itself, or in
heres in the very subject matter with
the deed deals, a prior con-
tract covering the same subject mat
ter cannot be shown as against the
provisions of the deed.
Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Justice Roberts. Chief
Hanna and Justice Parker
aoncurring.
sHERIFF LOSES FEES FOR
FEEDING PRISONERS in JAIL
In the case of Emil James, ap-
VS.. The Board of County
commissioners of Socorro County,
lppellee. an appeal from the district
,ourt of Socorro county, the stated
nent of facts reads:
This action was instituted by ap-t'
who was sheriff of Socorro
county, for salaries alleged to be due
i'm as sheriff. and for deputies,
and guard and cost of feeding
prisoners, etc. It was alleged that
.ccounts therefor had been presented
O the county commissioners. Judg-
nent was prayed for a total sum of
3564.11 and for an order requiring
he commissioners to levy taxes for
ne payment of the judgment.
Syllabus
/. A question not raised in the
rial court will not be considered on
ppeal.
2. The Bateman act (Secs. 1921
233, inclusive, Code 1870 was not
by Chapter 10S, Laws 1909.
Sec. 1889, Code 1870. L
3. 1t is a rule of statutory con-
that repeats by implication
ill not be favored, and that where
statutes can be construed to-
ether and preserve the objects to
e attained by each, they should be
0 construed. K
4. Chapter 1OS, Laws 1909, by COIL
the right upon counties %
ivy a tax for the payment of judg-
tents obtained for current expenses, {
i'd not authorize the rendition Ut
uCu Judgment anu LuuS Op0idtS ~ |
speal the Bateman act, !
S, 1t is proper to consider the {
rigin and history Of the law, the !
rior condition of the law, and the
eneral policy and course of legisla- I
on, There are few guides to con-
truction more useful than that which
attention to the prior condi- ,
on Of the law to aid in determin- {
lg the full Legislative meaning Of {
ny Statutory change thereof. I
6. The Bateman act was not re- /
called by the act fixing salaries for
ounty officers. (Chap. -, Laws |
915).
Judgment affirmed.
Opinion by Justice Roberts, Chief ]
lstice Hanna and Justice Parker {
oncurring.
BANK DEPOSITS HELD |
NOT SUBJECT TO TAX LIENS !
In an appeal against the Board Of