Duran v. Montoya
| Decision Date | 15 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 5439,5439 |
| Citation | 56 N.M. 198,1952 NMSC 25,242 P.2d 492 |
| Parties | DURAN v. MONTOYA. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Seth & Montgomery, Santa Fe, for appellant.
Manuel A. Sanchez, Santa Fe, Jose E. Armijo, Las Vegas, for appellee.
This case involves conflicting claims to a little more than one acre of land, each party claiming under a deed from a common grantor, and the appellee (defendant and cross complainant below) also claiming under a quitclaim deed from another. In addition each claimed title by adverse possession.
Three hearings were held in the case and an independent survey was made by a licensed surveyor selected by the trial court. The attorneys now representing the appellant (plaintiff below) did not appear in the lower court, but each party was there, represented by able attorneys, experienced in making a record so their case could be adequately presented here on appeal. They were evidently satisfied the findings of fact to be made by the trial court on a record so conflicting would settle the case, as neither made requested findings of fact or conclusions of law. After the findings and conclusions were made the attorney for the losing party was evidently satisfied they could not be upset as he did not file exceptions to them.
The trial court made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to the appellee and then entered judgment quieting his fee simple title to the land in question. This appeal followed.
The appellant here challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings against him and says he is entitled to question such findings here under Rule 52(c) even in the absence of requested findings or exceptions. The rule reads:
It is true that some federal courts have construed the last sentence of the rule in accordance with the contention of appellant, as, for instance, Monaghan v. Hill, 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 31; but in Fleming v. Van Der Loo, D.C.Cir., 160 F.2d 906, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia held the rule should be construed in connection with Rule 46, 28 U.S.C.A., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the claimed error called to the attention of the trial court before a review of the evidence could be invoked on appeal.
In Prater v. Holloway, 49 N.M. 353, 164 P.2d 378, the sentence in question was discussed but its effect was not decided. We have, however, since the adoption of the rule repeatedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Unified Contractor, Inc. v. Albuquerque Hous. Auth.
...a bar to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil case. See, e.g. , Duran v. Montoya , 1952-NMSC-025, ¶ 6, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492 ("We have ... repeatedly held a party could not obtain a review of the evidence where he failed to make requested findings or file excep......
-
Van Orman v. Nelson
...for the reason that no objections were made to such findings by motion or otherwise. In support of this proposition Duran v. Montoya, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492 (1952) is cited. We there held that a party could not obtain a review of the evidence where he failed to make requested findings or......
-
Cockrell v. Cockrell, 21529
...general request therefor in writing, or he fails to tender specific findings and conclusions." SCRA 1-052(B)(1)(f). In Duran v. Montoya, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492 (1952), Duran appealed a judgment quieting title to land in Montoya. Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the ......
-
Owensby v. Nesbitt, 5922
...courts of appeal had differed in their interpretation of it, as shown in the opinion written by Mr. Justice McGhee in Duran v. Montoya, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492, 493, in which he 'It is true that some federal courts have construed the last sentence of the rule in accordance with the conten......