Court Opinion

ID: 9794697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:09:37.001566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:18.155701
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing Appellants seek rehearing on the ground that after argument, but before the opinion, a motion for diminution of the record pursuant to Rule 14, subd. 12 had been filed and was not acted upon by us. The motion was not called to our attention until appellants’ motion for rehearing.  An examination of the motion for diminution of the record shows it to consist of an affidavit' by counsel for appellants attached to the motion filed in this court. Rule 14, subd. 12 contemplates a correction, completion, perfection or recertification of the record in the trial court certified by the judge or clerk of that court, not the filing of some new matter in this court which is not a part of the record below. On appeal, the Supreme Court only considers the record certified from the trial court. Appellants assert that on authority of Adams v. Tatsch, 68 N.M. 446, 362 P.2d 984, their diligence met the test to confer jurisdiction on this court. They misconstrue the basis of that decision. We said that failure to obtain timely allowance of an appeal is jurisdictional but that there it was made to appear, by a supplemental record certified by the clerk of the district court, that the order allowing the appeal was mailed by the district judge with more than enough time for it to have been received by the clerk before the 30 days elapsed. That decision was grounded on the presumption of the receipt of the order by the clerk in the due course of mail and that it was actually received by the clerk within the 30-day period. Our original opinion is affirmed and the motion for rehearing is denied. It is so ordered. ■ CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur. COMPTON, C. J., and CHAVEZ, J., not participating.