case comes within rule in New Mexico

1965We find no merit to appellant’s argument that this case comes within the exception mentioned in Ringle Development Corp. v. Chavez, 51 N.M. 156 , 180 P.2d 790 , or that Vigil v. Johnson, 60 N.M. 273 , 291 P. 2d 312 , aids her.

1965We find no merit to appellant’s argument that this case comes within the exception mentioned in Ringle Development Corp. v. Chavez, 51 N.M. 156 , 180 P.2d 790 , or that Vigil v. Johnson, 60 N.M. 273 , 291 P. 2d 312 , aids her.

1965We find no merit to appellant’s argument that this case comes within the exception mentioned in Ringle Development Corp. v. Chavez, 51 N.M. 156 , 180 P.2d 790 , or that Vigil v. Johnson, 60 N.M. 273 , 291 P. 2d 312 , aids her.

1965We find no merit to appellant’s argument that this case comes within the exception mentioned in Ringle Development Corp. v. Chavez, 51 N.M. 156 , 180 P.2d 790 , or that Vigil v. Johnson, 60 N.M. 273 , 291 P. 2d 312 , aids her.

1960We believe that this case comes within the rule announced in Central States Power & Light Corp. v. Thompson, 177 Okl. 310 , 58 P.2d 868, 870 , wherein the court said: “In the above decision this court held that the Corporation Commission had jurisdiction as to all matters where the public and the utility were involved, but that the Corporation Commission had no power or jurisdiction to adjudicate differences which are purely private between a utility and a citizen.

1960We believe that this case comes within the rule announced in Central States Power & Light Corp. v. Thompson, 177 Okl. 310 , 58 P.2d 868, 870 , wherein the court said: “In the above decision this court held that the Corporation Commission had jurisdiction as to all matters where the public and the utility were involved, but that the Corporation Commission had no power or jurisdiction to adjudicate differences which are purely private between a utility and a citizen.

1958Defendant contends that this case comes within the rule laid down in Medler v. Henry, 44 N.M. 275 , 101 P.2d 398 relative to arbitrarily disregarding the testimony of witnesses.

1958Defendant contends that this case comes within the rule laid down in Medler v. Henry, 44 N.M. 275 , 101 P.2d 398 relative to arbitrarily disregarding the testimony of witnesses.

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1942Appellee in her brief states that she did not move to dismiss the appeal believing that this case comes within the rule laid down in the cases of Roeske v. Lamb, 38 N.M. 309 , 32 P.2d 257 ; Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115 ; and Farmers Oil Co. v. State Tax Commission, 41 N.M. 693 , 73 P.2d 816 .

1938In State v. Fernandez Co., 28 N.M. 425 , 213 P. 769 , we held, as stated in the syllabus, that: “The receipt and acceptance of the amount of a judgment, in full settlement and satisfaction thereof, defeat the right to review such judgment on appeal.” In the opinion we discussed an exception to the general rule, within which the plaintiff in the case at bar seeks to bring herself, as follows: “Appellant admits the general rule to be that, ordinarily, one cannot accept a benefit under a judgment and then appeal from it, where the effect of the appeal may be to annul the judgment (2 R.C.L. 61-63,

1935In so far as deprivation of sleep is relied upon, we consider that the case comes within the rule established in State v. Woo Dak San, 35 N. M. 105, 290 P. 322 .

1933It is the appellant’s contention that this case comes within the rule laid down in the case of Mabie-Lowrey Hardware Co. v. Ross et al., 26 N. M. 51, 189 P. 42 , where wo held that, as between two claimants to property who derive their titles from the same grantor, the claimant who purchased in good faith, for value, though by quitclaim deed, but had no knowledge of the outstanding unrecorded deed of his grantor to the other claimant, had the better title.