Candelaria v. Miera.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1906 |
| Citation | 13 N.M. 360,84 P. 1020 |
| Parties | CANDELARIAv.MIERA. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Sandoval County; before Justice Ira A. Abbott.
Action by Andres Candelaria, by his guardian, Emigran Candelaria, against Epimenio A. Miera. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Findings and judgment of trial court supported by evidence will not be disturbed.
George W. Prichard and E. V. Chaves, for appellant.
Summers Burkhart, for appellee.
This was an action for money had and received, and was tried by the court without a jury by consent of the parties, resulting in a judgment against appellant. This court has frequently held that the findings of a trial court are the equivalent of a verdict of a jury. Zang v. Stover, 2 N. M. 29; Torlina v. Trorlicht, 5 N. M. 148, 21 Pac. 68; Lynch v. Grayson, 7 N. M. 26, 32 Pac. 149; Gale v. Salas, 11 N. M. 211, 66 Pac. 520; Romero v. Coleman, 11 N. M. 533, 70 Pac. 559; Rush v. Fletcher, 11 N. M. 555, 70 Pac. 559.
Under just what circumstances a verdict of a jury will be disturbed by this court for conflict with the evidence has been variously stated. In some cases the right to do so has been denied when there is any evidence to support it. In others it is said that this court will do so when there is no sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Various other forms of expression appear in the cases. See cases cited above and Waldo v. Beckwith, 1 N. M. 97; Archibeque v. Miera, 1 N. M. 160; Ruhe v. Abren, 1 N. M. 247; Badeau v. Baca, 2 N. M. 194; Crolot v. Maloy, 2 N. M. 198; Territory v. Maxwell, 2 N. M. 250; Rodey v. Ins. Co., 3 N. M. (Gild.) 543, 9 Pac. 348; Cerf v. Badaraco, 6 N. M. 214, 27 Pac. 504; Territory v. Hicks, 6 N. M. 596, 30 Pac. 872; Ortiz v. Bank (N. M.) 78 Pac. 529. Assuming that this court has power, in proper cases, to review and overturn findings of fact or verdicts of juries, and without attempting to classify the cases in which the power may and will be exercised, it is sufficient for the purposes of a decision of this case to state the rule of this court as follows: Ordinarily neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of fact of a trial court will be disturbed in this court when they are supported by any substantial evidence. In view of this rule, it is perfectly apparent, from an inspection of this record, that the appellant can have no relief here. The findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, and will not be disturbed.
The judgment of the lower court should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Territory v. West.
...findings of fact of a trial court, will be disturbed in this court when they are supported by any substantial evidence.” Candelaria v. Miera, 13 N. M. 360, 84 Pac. 1020. There was abundant evidence in this case to warrant the jury in returning the verdict they did return, finding the defend......
-
First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque v. Stover
... ... substantial evidence. This has been the established doctrine ... of this court ever since the case of Candelaria ... substantial evidence. This has been the established doctrine ... of this court ever since the case of Candelaria v ... Miera ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque v. Stover.
...it is supported by any substantial evidence. This has been the established doctrine of this court ever since the case of Candelaria v. Miera, 13 N. M. 360, 84 Pac. 1020, and we do not desire to depart from or modify the doctrine there stated. But, as we have pointed out in this case, there ......
-
Eckert v. Lewis
...P. 614; Jenkins v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 15 N. M. 286, 107 P. 739; Carpenter v. Lindauer, 12 N. M. 388, 395, 78 P. 57; Candelaria v. Miera, 13 N. M. 360, 84 P. 1020; Armijo v. Henry, 14 N. M. 181, 188, 89 P. 305, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 275; Rush v. Fletcher, 11 N. M. 555, 558, 70 P. 559; Gre......