Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IVA LEE CURBELLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VIVIAN MARGARITE VAUGHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF EDNA BAKER RICE, DECEASED, BELLE RIZZUTO, CLYDE H. HURLEY, E.J. HURLEY, EMIL HURLEY AND HAZEL THORPE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

A basic jurisdictional question, not raised by the parties, is presented by the record on appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, the trial court entered its decision which included its findings of fact and conclusions of law. No final judgment was entered therein carrying into effect the decision of the court; however, the appeal is taken from the decision of the court. Clearly, the trial court retains exclusive jurisdiction of the case until the entry of a proper judgment or order.

Appeals will lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the judge and filed in the case, or entered upon the record of the court and signed by the judge. Section 21-2-1(5) (1), N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., Rule 5(1) of the Supreme Court Rules; State v. Morris, 69 N.M. 89, 364 P.2d 348; D.M. Miller Co. v. Slease, 30 N.M. 469, 238 P. 828. Compare State ex rel. Reynolds v. McLean, 74 N.M. 178, 392 P.2d 12.

There being no final judgment entered, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ and NOBLE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CURBELLO v. VAUGHN
(Sep 6, 1966)