N.M. Stat. » Chapter 42 — Actions and Proceedings Relating to Property
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 22-17-7 (2026)

ANNOTATIONS

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

Court cannot augment or limit provisions of statute. — Provisions of replevin statute for seizing the property under a writ of replevin cannot be dispensed with, limited or augmented by rule of court. Johnson v. Terry, 1944-NMSC-035, 48 N.M. 253, 149 P.2d 795 (decided under former law).

When suit dismissed, even though implied waiver of seizure. — Where there was no showing that defendant had either actual or constructive possession of the guns at the time of trial, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court was proper, even if there was an implied waiver of seizure and delivery of the guns as provided in this section. Piner v. Pender, 1972-NMSC-010, 83 N.M. 502, 494 P.2d 164. Date of wrongful detention, date for fixing property value. — The time for fixing the value of the property in case where plaintiff waived seizure and delivery of property and asked for damages was the date of the wrongful detention. Valley Chevrolet Co. v. Whitaker, 1966-NMSC-130, 76 N.M. 488, 416 P.2d 154.

Fair and reasonable basis for determination of value necessary. — Where the evidence revealed the value of property plaintiff sought judgment for as of the date defendant obtained possession, the value of the property when wrongfully detained one week later could reasonably be inferred. A fair and reasonable basis for determination of the value is all that is required. Valley Chevrolet Co. v. Whitaker, 1966-NMSC-130, 76 N.M. 488, 416 P.2d 154.

Slight departure in relief awarded, not ground for complaint. — In an action of replevin, where plaintiff waived seizure, affidavit and bond, and the trial court found for plaintiff, giving him an election whether to accept a return of the property subject to a lien which defendants had established on the property or take judgment for the value thereof, less the amount of the lien held by defendants, defendants could not complain of the slight departure in relief awarded if it did not comply literally with a statutory judgment in replevin. Ace Auto Co. v. Russell, 1955-NMSC-025, 59 N.M. 182, 281 P.2d 143.

Not separating actual value and damages, harmless error only. — Even though under this statute the actual value of the property and damages should have been separated, the error was harmless where, from an examination of the entire record, it would appear that the judgment of the trial court granted substantial justice. Therefore, it would be going too far to deprive a plaintiff of a recovery upon no better grounds than the bare informality of a verdict. Hicks v. Maestas, 1962-NMSC-102, 70 N.M. 347, 373 P.2d 916.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Recovery of damages in replevin for value of use of property detained, by successful party having only security interest as conditional vendor, chattel mortgagee, or the like, 33 A.L.R.2d 774.

Allowance of loss of profits from deprivation of use of detained property, 48 A.L.R.2d 1053.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1955–1972 · leading case: Valley Chevrolet Co. v. Whitaker, 416 P.2d 154 (N.M. 1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Valley Chevrolet Co. v. Whitaker, 416 P.2d 154 (N.M. 1966). · cites it 5× “It raises one issue: at what point in time is the value of the property to be fixed under § 22-17-7, N.M.S.A. 1953? Plaintiff and defendant entered a contingent sale agreement under which plaintiff would attempt to sell defendant’s truck and dependent on the sale defendant would…”
Novak v. Dow, 474 P.2d 712 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970). “The counterclaim did not waive seizure and delivery of the property as authorized by § 22-17-7, N.M.S.A.1953. It alleged a right to immediate possession, a wrongful detention by plaintiff, and asked for recovery of the car.”
Ace Auto Co. v. Russell, 281 P.2d 143 (N.M. 1955). “§ 22-17-7. The plaintiff having waived seizure, affidavit and bond, as he was privileged to do under the statute mentioned, the defendants claim the court was limited to entering the judgment prescribed by the last sentence of this section, reading: “In such case, the verdict,…”
Piner v. Pender, 494 P.2d 164 (N.M. 1972). “Thus, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court was proper, even if there was an implied waiver of seizure and delivery of the guns as provided in § 22-17-7, N.M.S.A. Comp, and as urged by plaintiffs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.