Title: Rivera v. Hutchings
Citation: 284 P.2d 222, 59 N.M. 337
Docket Number: 5884
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: May 26, 1955

284 P.2d 222 (1955) 59 N.M. 337 Gertrude RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M.C. HUTCHINGS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 5884. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 26, 1955. *223 H.E. Blattman, Las Vegas, V.A. Doggett, Raton, for appellant. Robert A. Morrow, Raton, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. The matters which took place prior to the trial of the case are as follows: On April 29, 1952, the plaintiff (appellee) filed her complaint against the defendant (appellant) to establish the paternity of her child born out of wedlock, and for support money for said child. On June 2, 1952, the defendant filed his answer to said complaint. On June 24, 1952, plaintiff noticed defendant for trial on the merits as of July 1, 1952. On June 27, 1952, defendant filed his request for a jury trial and deposited the requisite fee. On November 6, 1952, the defendant filed an affidavit of prejudice against the Honorable Luis E. Armijo, the district judge of the fourth judicial district, in and for San Miguel County. The case was then at issue and the affidavit was filed more than ten days before the beginning of the term of said court. On November 14, 1952, the clerk of the district court of said fourth judicial district certified to this court that an affidavit of disqualification had been filed against the said Luis E. Armijo, District Judge, and that opposing counsel had failed to agree upon a judge of another district to try the case. On November 15, 1952, based upon said certification the then Chief Justice of this court designated the Honorable Fred J. Federici, Judge, of the Eighth Judicial District to try the same, and mailed a copy thereof to the Hon. Luis E. Armijo and opposing counsel. On November 24, 1952, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to vacate the designation of the judge of the eighth judicial district on several grounds. On or before December 29, 1952, counsel for plaintiff telephoned the then Chief Justice and informed him that he was unaware of the disqualification of Judge Armijo and he would never have agreed on Judge Federici, because he did not believe that he could preside over the case with impartiality. On December 31, 1952, the then Chief Justice vacated the order designating Judge Federici because it was improvidently issued. On September 4, 1953, the Hon. Luis E. Armijo entered an order in said cause declaring that the affidavit of disqualification filed against him on November 6, 1952, by defendant was ineffective to disqualify him to hear said cause. Thereafter the case was set for trial on August 26, 1953, and on said day Mr. H.E. Blattman, counsel for defendant, stated to the court: "The objection will be overruled." At the conclusion of the testimony of the witness Mrs. Nash Trujillo, the court said: On September 4, 1953, the above proposed order handed him by plaintiff's attorney was signed by Judge Armijo. The first part of it reads: The last part of the order reads as follows: Thereafter, on November 20, 1953, the case came on for trial and Mr. Blattman again renewed his objection to have Judge Armijo try the case, he said: Thus, it will be seen that there was nothing defendant's counsel could do after *225 the judge refused to disqualify but to remain before the court and to present and preserve every legal right in the proceedings, as he did, so that this court could review the whole proceedings. Section 21-5-8 of the 1953 Compilation provides: Section 21-5-9 provides: The filing of the affidavit of prejudice, after the case was at issue in the manner and form prescribed by Sections 21-5-8 and 21-5-9, supra, ipso facto divested the judge of all further jurisdiction in the case, and his subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction and null and void. Cf. State v. Towndrow, 25 N.M. 203, 180 P. 282. The contention of appellee, that because a copy of the affidavit of prejudice was not served on him, and because it was not called to the attention of the trial judge, was ineffective, is without merit. There is nothing in the statute which gives any indication that a copy of the affidavit should be served on opposing counsel or that it must be brought to the trial judge's attention, after it is filed in the office of the clerk of the district court. If it had been the intention of the legislature to have a copy of said affidavit served upon opposing counsel and to call the judge's attention to the same, it could have easily so provided. However, this is a matter which may be appropriately addressed to the Legislature. For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded. If counsel are unable to agree on a district judge within ten days after receipt of mandate, then the clerk of the district court should so certify to the Chief Justice of this court, as provided for by rule, for his action in the matter. The judge agreed upon or designated will vacate the judgment and hear the case de novo. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER and McGHEE, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., dissenting in part. KIKER, Justice (dissenting in part). I concur in the result at which Justice LUJAN arrives in his opinion but cannot agree to the content of the paragraph next to the last of the opinion and so must dissent thereto. It is inconceivable to me that one of the parties to a suit can be kept in ignorance of the filing of any paper by another, which paper can accomplish anything in the suit. In our Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5 is entitled "Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers." It reads: When an affidavit of disqualification of a judge is filed it necessarily constitutes notice to all who may look into the file that the judge may no longer do anything about the case. I know of no stronger demand that can be made in a matter of litigation than that the judge, whose ordinary right it would be to preside in the case until entry of judgment, must stand aside, allowing some other judge selected as provided by law, to try the case. I think the opinion in this case ought not include anything in any way which can be taken as approving a failure to serve on the opposite party a copy of the disqualification of a judge which is filed.