Court Opinion

ID: 9631773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:49:42.686986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:01.089863
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). The record shows that this case came on for trial the morning of December 9, 1971, in Sandoval County, between Hughes and Maloof. While motions were being discussed, Hughes stated: * * * I do believe Your Honor though that the cause of action of the Montano’s against the Hughes’ should be dismissed with prejudice at this time in view of the fact that we are here before the Court ready to go to trial, all counsel has been alerted to the trial and formal notice given and neither the Montano’s or their attorney are present in the Courtroom and we are here ready for trial on their case and we would move that that action be dismissed, Montano v. Hughes. [Emphasis added] * * * * * * THE COURT: It is so ordered then The Montano’s and their attorney were not present. Thereupon, Hughes orally moved the court for a change of venue to Bernalillo County. THE COURT: I think this Court already has jurisdiction of the matter and I’m going to deny your motion. The case proceeded to jury trial without objection. By proceeding to trial without objection, Hughes waived any claimed error on the issue of venue. Peisker v. Chavez, 46 N.M. 159, 123 P.2d 726 (1942); Davey v. Davey, 77 N.M. 303, 422 P.2d 38 (1967); Bernstein v. Bernstein, 73 N.M. 365, 388 P.2d 187 (1964). Where the venue statute is jurisdictional on its face, § 21-5-1 (G), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4), venue cannot be waived. Allen v. McClellan, 77 N.M. 801, 427 P.2d 677 (1967). Otherwise, it can.