Court Opinion

ID: 9855768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:30:41.557871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:00.628162
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice (concurring specially). This will note my concurrence in the opinion for the Court prepared by Mr. Justice McGHEE. At the time attorney for plaintiff suffered the pitfall of default, he had never had an acknowledgment from the trial judge of his letter transmitting the order of dismissal. For aught he knew it might have miscarried. Furthermore, for some time in my consideration of this matter, I suffered under the mistaken idea that the trial judge had made plaintiff’s attorney a promise to notify him when he signed the order. Such is not the case. He simply overlooked a request so to do. On the other hand, I am disposed to agree with Mr. Justice SHILLINGLAW that if the trial court did have jurisdiction of the case under Jaritas Live Stock Co. v. Spriggs, 42 N.M. 14, 74 P.2d 722, it would fall under the ban of District Court Rule 60b (1). I entertained the doubt expressed by Mr. Justice SHILLINGLAW as to the wisdom of limiting the right of appeal to 30 days, so stating in my dissent attached to the order but my mild protest was unavailing. As a matter of fact with the free and liberal use made in this state of our statutory disqualification statute, many attorneys wlm must resort to mail to get their orders allowing appeals to the court do not have the full 30 days allowed by the rule. But the Rule has now been in force four years and attorneys have had full opportunity to accommodate themselves to its provisions. I concur in the result.