Ash v. H. G. Reiter Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 8255,8255 |
| Citation | 429 P.2d 653,1967 NMSC 149,78 N.M. 194 |
| Parties | Joe ASH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. H. G. REITER COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
SPIESS, Judge, Court of Appeals.
This action is based upon an oral contract of employment between appellant H. G. Reiter Company, Inc., the employer, and appellee, Joe Ash, its employee. The parties will be referred to as Reiter and Ash.
The trial court, in substance, found that the contract provided for the payment to Ash of a fixed monthly salary and in addition a bonus of four percent of the annual gross profits earned by Reiter. During Reiter's fiscal year 1963--1964 Ash received the fixed salary plus one hundred dollars per month which was applied against the yearly bonus. Thereafter by agreement between the parties the monthly advance against the bonus was discontinued and the full amount was to become payable at the end of the fiscal year. The court further found that the bonus for the fiscal year 1964--1965 was owing and unpaid and accordingly rendered judgment against Reiter, from which this appeal has been prosecuted.
Reiter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that its contract with Ash obligated it to pay him four percent of its gross yearly profits for the last mentioned fiscal year.
It is fundamental in this jurisdiction that the facts found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case rests in this court upon appeal, and are binding upon the Supreme Court unless set aside as not being supported by substantial evidence. Grisham v. Nelms, 71 N.M. 37, 376 P.2d 1 (1962).
Reiter recognizes that the evidence is conflicting as to its obligation to pay the bonus for the fiscal year 1964--1965. In our opinion, it lends substantial support to the challenged finding of fact. This court will not resolve conflicts in the evidence or disturb findings supported by substantial evidence. Sanchez v. Garcia, 72 N.M. 406, 384 P.2d 681 (1963); Hummer v. Betenbough, 75 N.M. 274, 404 P.2d 110 (1965); Tyner v. DiPaolo, 76 N.M. 483, 416 P.2d 150 (1966).
It is next urged that the trial court erred in admitting, over Reiter's objection, the testimony of an accountant employed by Reiter to audit its records and prepare necessary annual reports. The accountant's testimony was offered by Ash to establish the amount of gross profit realized by Reiter for its fiscal year 1964--1965.
Reiter objected to the admission of the testimony contending that it should be excluded as privileged under § 67--23--26, N.M.S.A., 1953. This statute is in the following language.
Reiter's ground of objection to the testimony in the court below was limited to invoking the above statute which was read in full to the trial court. The objection was overruled and the accountant's testimony was received. We note that the accountant made no objection to testifying nor was the objection made on his behalf.
The objection grounded as it was only upon § 67--23--26, supra, could not properly have been sustained by the trial court for the reason that the assertion of privilege under this statute is available only to the accountant. Dorfman v. Rombs, 218 F.Supp. 905 (D.C.Ill.1963).
Reiter argues here that the testimony of the accountant was inadmissible under § 67--23--26, supra, and likewise under § 20--1--12(e), N.M.S.A., 1953. The last mentioned statutes is as follows:
'In the courts of the state of New Mexico, no certified public accountant or public accountant shall be permitted to disclose information obtained in the conduct of any examination, audit or other investigation made in a professional capacity, or which may have been disclosed to said accountant by a client, without the consent in writing of such client or his, her or its successors or legal representatives.'
The claim of privilege under § 20--1--12(e), supra, is made for the first time in this court. The trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peralta v. Martinez
... ... 1970) (concurring opinion, Wright, J.). During the trial of a case, an objection to an admission into evidence which does not specify the particular ground on which the evidence is objectionable, will be treated on appeal as if no objection to such evidence has been made. Ash v. H. G. Reiter Company, 78 N.M. 194, 429 P.2d 653 (1967). We find no objection made to the admissibility of Peralta's affidavit ... When an affidavit is filed, the opposing party has alternative methods of attacking inadmissible matters, (1) by filing a motion to strike, pointing out ... ...
-
Ernst & Ernst v. Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co., 2-977A365
... ... 905. In Baylor v. Mading-Dugan Drug Co. (N.D.Ill.1972), 57 F.R.D. 509, the court held the Illinois statutory privilege not applicable in a federal case. The statutory privilege was held waived by failing to raise any objection during testimony in Ash v. H. G. Reiter Co. (1967) 78 N.M. 194, 429 P.2d 653. In all of these cases then the statutory privilege, albeit discussed, was not a controlling factor. In both Palmer v. Fisher (7th Cir. 1955), 228 F.2d 603, Cert. denied (1956) 351 U.S. 965, 76 S.Ct. 1030, 100 L.Ed. 1485, Overruled on other grounds (1968), ... ...
-
Hilburn v. Brodhead
... ... A finding of fact supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed by us. Armijo v. World Insurance Co., 78 N.M. 204, 429 P.2d 904 (1967); Ash v. H. G. Reiter Co., 78 N.M. 194, 429 P.2d 653 (1967). Accordingly, the facts in this regard as found by the trial court are the facts upon which the case will be determined here ... Appellants assert with great conviction that Hon was not a creditor of Bain under the facts found and, ... ...
- Benally v. Pigman
-
Dealing with accountants and auditors: avoiding sanctions in complex cases.
...April 7, 1986) (under Illinois statute, privilege is afforded to accountant and invocable only by accountant); Ash v. H.G. Reiter Co., 429 P.2d 653, 655 (N.M. 1967) (New Mexico's privilege can be waived only by accountant). (21.) See Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 336 (1973); In re I......