Clark v. Maisen, No. 3187.

No. 3187. | N.M. | Jan 26, 1927

OPINION OF THE COURT [1] A motion is presented to strike from the transcript the special findings given and refused, and a paper entitled "Statement of Facts,"

[1] 4CJ p. 159 n. 62. [2] 4CJ p. 443 n. 44. [3] 4CJ p. 505 n. 84. upon the ground that they are not a part of the record proper and are not included in any bill of exceptions. The findings and conclusions of the trial court, made and refused, are not a part of the record proper, unless ordered by the court to be filed with the clerk, which was not done. Gradi v. Bachechi, 24 N.M. 100" court="N.M." date_filed="1918-02-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gradi-v-bachechi-6468322?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6468322">24 N.M. 100, 172 P. 188" court="N.M." date_filed="1918-04-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-floyd-6468308?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6468308">172 P. 188.

[2] The statement of facts, so called, is a paper filed by appellant in the clerk's office, and appearing in the transcript, having no authenticity whatever, was never passed on by the judge, and was never made a part of the record by any order of the district court. This paper cannot be considered by us. Loftus v. Johnson, 23 N.M. 546" court="N.M." date_filed="1917-12-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/loftus-v-johnson-6468271?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6468271">23 N.M. 546, 170 P. 49.

[3] It follows that the motion to strike the two papers mentioned should be granted, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY and WATSON, JJ., concur.