## Facts

- Mariana Jaremillo was a minor who was living and working as a servant in the household of José de la Cruz Romero under an asserted “contract for peonage.”
- Jaremillo’s father removed her from Romero’s service.
- Romero claimed Jaremillo was indebted to him for about $51, which he treated as equivalent to roughly 26 months of labor.
- Romero filed the matter before a justice of the peace, asserting that Jaremillo breached the peonage arrangement when her father took her away.
- Jaremillo did not receive notice of the justice-court proceeding and did not appear to contest Romero’s claims.
- Romero was the only witness; he also produced a “bondage letter” as his proof of the claimed indebtedness and obligation to serve.
- The justice of the peace ruled for Romero and ordered Jaremillo to work for him for 26 months.
- Jaremillo appealed to the district court, which affirmed the justice’s order.
- Jaremillo then appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

## Issues

1. Whether a justice-court order compelling a minor to serve for a fixed term under an alleged peonage agreement can stand when the minor received no notice and the proceeding was effectively one-sided.
2. Whether Romero’s proof—his testimony plus a “bondage letter”—was sufficient to establish an enforceable obligation allowing a court to order 26 months of compulsory service.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico reversed the district court’s affirmance of the justice-court judgment.
- The court declined to enforce the 26-month service order entered after a proceeding in which the minor received no notice and the asserted peonage obligation was supported only by the master’s testimony and a bondage letter.

## Legal Principles

- A court may not bind a person to a coercive labor order through proceedings conducted without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Territorial “master and servant” statutes are to be construed by their legal limits, not by assumptions of slave-like power derived from custom or earlier regimes.
- Compulsory service for debt, especially when imposed on a minor, requires reliable proof of a legally valid obligation; a one-sided record resting on the master’s assertions is not enough to justify an order depriving personal liberty for a set term.
- Appellate review may set aside justice-court judgments enforcing claimed peonage arrangements when the record shows basic procedural unfairness and inadequate proof of the asserted contract or indebtedness.

## Conclusion

In *Jaremillo v. Romero*, the territorial supreme court reversed a district-court affirmance of a justice-court order that required a minor to work 26 months for an alleged debt, because the judgment was entered after a one-sided, no-notice proceeding and relied on minimal proof of any enforceable peonage obligation.


Jaremillo v. Romero, 1 N.M.190 (1857)