Cochran v. Gordon

Citation423 P.2d 43,77 N.M. 358,1967 NMSC 14
Decision Date23 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 8074,8074
PartiesJ. Albert COCHRAN and Evelyn A. Cochran, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Andrew J. GORDON and Deweylee S. Gordon, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico
OPINION

OMAN, Judge, Court of Appeals.

This is the second time this case has been here on appeal. On the first appeal the judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees was affirmed in all respects, except for the cross-appeal of plaintiffs taken pursuant to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. Cochran v. Gordon, 69 N.M. 346, 367 P.2d 526. The cause was remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of requiring an accounting by defendants to plaintiffs.

In the accounting proceedings which followed, the trial court found, just as was found on the prior trial, that plaintiffs had paid defendants for the partnership operations account the sum of $10,601.34. The trial court also found that one of the items of expense incurred and loss sustained by the partnership was depreciation on certain pieces of partnership equipment in the total amount of $2,962.42.

The defendants have appealed from the judgment entered at the conclusion of the accounting proceedings, and their sole point for reversal is stated as follows:

'THE BEGINNING POINT, THE INTERNAL CALCULATIONS, AND THE END RESULT OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ACCOUNTING HAVE NO SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.'

They first attack the trial court's finding that $10,601.34 is the amount which should be accounted for by the defendants. They predicate their attack upon the assertion that:

'* * * the court ignored the uncontradicted evidence of the accountant that a total of ony $20,263.68 (Ex. A. Tr. 39) had been paid by appellees toward both the operating and purchase accounts, * * *.'

(By deducting $12,001.34, the amount the court found on the first trial has been expended by plaintiffs toward the purchase of land, from $20,263.38, defendants arrive at $8,261.94 as the amount for which they claim they were required to account.)

Their only reference to this alleged 'uncontradicted evidence' is a reference to an exhibit attached to a memorandum submitted by defendants' attorney long after the case was tried, after the court had announced his preliminary decision, and after the plaintiffs had submitted their requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The memorandum, including the attached exhibit, was in fact an argument submitted to the court in an effort to dissuade the court from the opinions expressed in his preliminary decision. Neither the memorandum, nor the attached exhibit, is evidence. Plaintiffs have not complied with the express requirements of rule 15(6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. See Cooper v. Bank of New Mexico, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431 issued November 24, 1966.

Regardless of this failure on the part of defendants, their assertion must fall because one of the express findings of fact made by the trial court on the prior trial was:

'That between October 13, 1950, and August 4, 1951, Plaintiffs paid to Defendants, or expended for the partnership account, $10,601.34 for which sum receipts were given by the Defendants and earmarked for the so-called 'operations account."

No attack on this finding was made on the prior appeal, and thus it became a fact upon which the case rests. This finding was a part of the law of the case for the purposes of the accounting on remand. See McBee v. O'Connell, 19 N.M. 565, 145 P. 123; Albuquerque Broadcasting Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 54 N.M. 133, 215 P.2d 819; Mitchell v. Allison, 54 N.M. 56, 213 P.2d 231; Reed v. Fish Engineering Corp., 76 N.M. 760, 418 P.2d 537.

Defendants, in order to demonstrate that the internal calculations of the trial court have no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Bendorf v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengeselischaft, 2648
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • April 5, 1977
    ...he requested the erroneous instruction which was given to the jury. Territory v. Yarberry, 2 N.M. 391 (Gild.1883); See Cochran v. Gordon, 77 N.M. 358, 423 P.2d 43 (1967); Platero v. Jones, 83 N.M. 261, 490 P.2d 1234 Trial Court's Conduct Plaintiff contends that certain comments by the trial......
  • Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, 9441
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 22, 1972
    ...Dismissal, it was the City's duty to clearly assert this claim (Morris v. Merchant, 77 N.M. 411, 423 P.2d 606 (1967); Cochran v. Gordon, 77 N.M. 358, 423 P.2d 43 (1967); Novak v. Dow, 82 N.M. 30, 474 P.2d 712 (Ct.App.1970)), and then to present argument and authority in support thereof (Spr......
  • Varney v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 2, 1968
    ...was a part of the law of the case for the purpose of determining the present worth of the damages awarded on remand. See Cochran v. Gordon, 77 N.M. 358, 423 P.2d 43; Reed v. Fish Eng'r Corp., 76 N.M. 760, 418 P.2d 537; Albuquerque Broadcasting Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 54 N.M. 133, 215 P.2d......
  • State v. Miranda, 7125
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 1, 1983
    ...therefore, was not fairly invoked. NMSA 1978, Crim., Child.Ct., Dom.Rel. & W/C App.R. 308 (Repl.Pamp.1983). See Cochran v. Gordon, 77 N.M. 358, 423 P.2d 43 (1967). Second, even if defendant did not know about the possible conflict of interest, that fact is irrelevant. Baird v. State, 90 N.M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT