Carlisle v. Walker, 4757.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 4757.,4757. |
| Citation | 47 N.M. 83,136 P.2d 479 |
| Parties | CARLISLEv.WALKER et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Fifth Judicial District Court, Lea County; McGhee, Judge.
Action by R. L. Carlisle against Sime Walker and others for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff, by failing to make general written request for specific findings and conclusions, or to tender specific findings and conclusions, thereby “waived” specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 52, par. 4, subpar. 6.
Lee R. York, of Hobbs, for appellant.
John R. Brand, of Hobbs, for appellees.
Appellant sued defendant for damages alleged to have been caused to his person and his automobile on March 18, 1941, due to the negligent operation by defendant of a truck under his control. Defendant denied that he was negligent and alleged that plaintiff's injuries, if any, were due to and caused solely by his own negligence. The case was tried by the court without a jury.
The court rendered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant which incorporated a general finding that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the allegations of his complaint to the effect that the damages suffered by him were caused by the negligence of the defendant's agents, and further that the plaintiff had been guilty of negligence in failing to signal his intention to turn and stop his car while proceeding along a public highway, which negligence on his behalf was the sole and proximate cause of the collision and the consequent damages. It was admitted in plaintiff's reply to defendant's answer that he gave no signal when turning off the road to the right.
No other findings of fact or conclusions of law were made in the case.
Neither party requested or tendered specific findings and conclusions.
Appellant assigned errors as follows:
[1] As to the first assignment of error, it is sufficient to call attention to sub-paragraph (6) of the fourth paragraph of Rule 52 of Rules of Civil Procedure as follows: “A party will waive specific findings of fact and conclusions of law if he fails to make a general request therefor in writing, or if he fails to tender specific findings and conclusions.”
[2] The record in the case at bar does not invoke a review of the evidence. Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 35 N.M. 52, 53, 290 P. 1022.
[3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DesGeorges v. Grainger
...court has plainly held that, absent a request for findings and conclusions, a general judgment will be sustained. See Carlisle v. Walker, 1943, 47 N.M. 83, 136 P.2d 479; Teaver v. Miller, 1949, 53 N.M. 345, 208 P.2d 156; Gilmore v. Baldwin, 1955, 59 N.M. 51, 278 P.2d 790; Scuderi v. Moore, ......
-
Owensby v. Nesbitt, 5922
...held a party could not obtain a review of the evidence where he failed to make requested findings or file exceptions. See Carlisle v. Walker, 47 N.M. 83, 136 P.2d 479; Rubalcava v. Garst, 53 N.M. 295, 206 P.2d 1154; Teaver v. Miller, 53 N.M. 345, 208 P.2d 156; and Chavez v. Chavez, 54 N.M. ......
-
Edington v. Alba
...where, as here, the complaining party neither tendered specific requests nor made a general request in writing. Carlisle v. Walker, 47 N.M. 83, 136 P.2d 479; In re Guardianship of Caffo, 69 N.M. 320, 366 P.2d 848; Gilmore v. Baldwin, 59 N.M. 51, 278 P.2d 790; Rule 52(B)(a)(6) (Sec. 21-1-1(5......
-
Scuderi v. Moore, 5861
...the evidence to see whether it supports the general findings or judgment. Duran v. Montoya, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492; Carlisle v. Walker, 47 N.M. 83, 136 P.2d 479; Prater v. Holloway, 49 N.M. 353, 164 P.2d 378; Rule 52(b)(6), our Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule 'A party will waive speci......