Upon trial de novo in the district court upon appeal from the magistrate court, the district court shall allow all amendments necessary to the furtherance of justice.
History: 1953 Comp., § 36-15-4, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 151.
ANNOTATIONS
Repeals. — Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 171, repealed former 36-15-1 to 36-15-4, 1953 Comp., relating to forfeiture of appearance bonds, summons, service and appeal, effective January 1, 1969.
Meaning of “trial de novo”. — Appeals from a magistrate court to the district court shall be determined by trial de novo which means “anew.” Southern Union Gas Co. v. Taylor, 1971-NMSC-067, 82 N.M. 670, 486 P.2d 606.
Amendment to show jurisdiction allowed. — Former statute called for an affirmative showing on the face of the papers as to jurisdictional matters, and where it did not so appear upon any appeal, and yet the jurisdiction actually existed, it was the duty of district court to allow the necessary amendment to show such fact. Tietjen v. McCoy, 1918-NMSC-074, 24 N.M. 164, 172 P. 1144 (decided under former law).
Amendment not sufficient. — Amendment to complaint to show jurisdiction by means of a paper clipped to the complaint was not sufficient. Bell v. Beck, 1939-NMSC-035, 43 N.M. 315, 92 P.2d 992 (decided under former law).
Error in refusal to permit amendment. — In action of replevin begun in justice of peace court (now magistrate court) and appealed to district court, district court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to amend affidavit of replevin in controversy. Romero v. Luna, 1892-NMSC-011, 6 N.M. 440, 30 P. 855 (decided under former law).
Leave to amend not to be withheld. — Power of district court to exercise its discretion in giving leave to amend was not to be withheld in cases of appeal, when it appeared that justice of the peace (now magistrate) had jurisdiction of subject matter in controversy and of parties in the case. Sanchez v. Luna, 1857-NMSC-012, 1 N.M. 238 (decided under former law).
Grant of summary judgment not error. — Where there was nothing to show the trial court failed to consider the matters he was required to consider by Rule 56(c) [now Rule 1-056C], N.M.R. Civ. P., grant of summary judgment regardless of magistrate’s findings was not error. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Taylor, 1971-NMSC-067, 82 N.M. 670, 486 P.2d 606.
Scope of appeal. — Where defendant did not challenge his convictions on appeal and did not claim to be aggrieved, but only challenged constitutionality of a federal statute and its effect on him, defendant lacked the right to appeal his conviction. State v. Garcia, 2003-NMCA-045, 133 N.M. 444, 63 P.3d 1164.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Justices of the Peace § 96.
51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace §§ 151, 153(8), 154(3), 174, 190, 226.