Fair v. Morrow
| Decision Date | 13 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 4072.,4072. |
| Citation | 52 P.2d 612,40 N.M. 11 |
| Parties | FAIRv.MORROW et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Owen, Judge.
Action of forcible entry and detainer by V. K. Fair against Jap Morrow and another. From the part of a judgment awarding damages for detention of real estate, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
In forcible entry and detainer action tried to court, alleged error in admitting testimony tending to prove rental value of lease held not reviewable, where there might have been other substantial evidence to support general finding, which could not be determined because no requests were made for conclusions of law, and none were made by court.
John E. Hall, of Carrizozo, for appellants.
J. C. Gilbert and Claude J. Neis, both of Roswell, for appellee.
This is an appeal from that part of a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action awarding damages for detention of real estate. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court or requested by either party.
[1] 1. Appellants' first point is to the effect that the district court erred in hearing the cause without notice being given to appellants (defendants below). The judgment recites, “And the defendants appearing by their attorney, John E. Hall,” from which it would seem they were represented at the hearing irrespective of notice. The transcript of evidence shows that Mr. Hall was present, objected to the introduction of testimony, and was permitted to cross-examine witnesses if he so desired. In fact, the court held defendants (appellants) were not in default, a question raised by appellee, and that the case was fully open for hearing. We do not find any requests for a continuance or postponement on account of appellants' absence. If their counsel thought it necessary for them to be present, he should have so apprised the court. There is no merit in this contention.
[2][3] 2. Points were made that the court erred in admission of certain testimony tending to prove rental value of the lease. This testimony was admissible; but, assuming that such testimony was erroneously admitted, it may be questioned whether such objection could avail anything in this court. We do not review the testimony except to determine whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, or requested findings should have been made. Should we strike this particular evidence from the record, might there not remain substantial evidence to support the general finding which we could not determine because no requests were made for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and none were made by the court?
Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 35 N.M. 52, 290 P. 1022.
[4] 3. The appellants made several points of the proposition that the court failed to follow the correct rule in determining the amount of damage, in that it was found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...Atkinson, 39 N.M. 307, 46 P.2d 667; In re Chavez' Will, 39 N.M. 304, 46 P.2d 665; Daniel v. Clark, 39 N.M. 494, 50 P.2d 429; Fair v. Morrow, 40 N.M. 11, 52 P.2d 612. But, accepting all the alleged facts lifted from the testimony and the opinion of the trial court as supplementing the findin......
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...39 N.M. 307, 46 P.2d 667; In re Chavez' Will, 39 N.M. 304, 46 P.2d 665; Daniel v. Clark, 39 N.M. 494, 50 P.2d 429; Fair v. Morrow, 40 N.M. 11, 52 P.2d 612. But, accepting all the alleged facts lifted from the testimony and the opinion of the trial court as supplementing the findings of fact......
-
Arias v. Springer
...whether a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence or whether requested findings should have been made, Fair v. Morrow, 40 N.M. 11, 52 P.2d 612, except in passing upon a demurrer to the evidence, or motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case, Telman v. Galles, 41 N. M. 5......