Keller v. Cavanaugh, 6279

Citation64 N.M. 86,324 P.2d 783,1958 NMSC 47
Decision Date23 April 1958
Docket NumberNo. 6279,6279
PartiesKuno F. KELLER and Kathryn M. Keller, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph Thomas CAVANAUGH and Hester Ann Cavanaugh, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

Dale B. Dilts, Albuquerque, for appellants.

McAtee, Toulouse & Machiondo, Thomas J. Clear, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellees.

SHILLINGLAW, Justice.

On November 15, 1955, the parties to this appeal entered into a certain real estate contract whereby the appellees sold a house and lot located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, to the appellants. Appellants fell into arrears as to payments under the contract and on November 20, 1956, suit was brought for possession of the property and damages.

As a result thereof, after trial of the issues in the case, judgment was entered against the appellants in the sum of $625, $375 being for payments under the real estate contract for the months of November and December, 1956 and January, 1957, and $250 for damages to the appellees.

In the same judgment the court suggested that the appellees give the appellants thirty days to vacate the premises unless payment of the judgment be made and, further, that a writ of possession should issue in the event the jugment was not paid within thirty days from the date of the hearing.

In their brief in chief the appellants state, '* * * the only issue in this appeal is the $250.00 damages awarded from the defendants to the plaintiffs.' The appellees in their answer brief state, 'We would be content with a statmenet of the issue as involving only the Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) damage award, * * *.' Argument touching upon other aspects of the case, therefore, will not be considered.

The appellants contend there is no evidence in the transcript to support the judgment for damages with the exception of testimony that $122 was paid by appellees in costs and attorneys fees in the cause below, and a statement of the appellee to the effect that his attorneys fees to the time of the trial were $150.

A judgment for damages must be supported by substantial evidence. Hase v. Summers, 35 N.M. 274, 295 P. 293. Absent a statute or rule of court, attorneys fees may not be considered as an item recoverable in damages. State ex rel. Stanley v. Lujan, 43 N.M. 348, 93 P.2d 1002.

Aside from evidence on this point the record fails to show the basis for the judgment as to the award of $250. The appellees offer as grounds for the award that the trial court thought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Aboud v. Adams, WALKER-HINKL
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • March 2, 1973
    ...to those mentioned previously, see Lanier v. Securities Acceptance Corporation, 74 N.M. 755, 398 P.2d 980 (1965); and Keller v. Cavanaugh, 64 N.M. 86, 324 P.2d 783 (1958). Plaintiff cites Bank of New Mexico v. Rice, 78 N.M. 170, 429 P.2d 368 (1967), for the proposition that attorney's fees ......
  • Gregg v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 23, 1963
    ...are not taxed as costs or considered as an item of damages.' State ex rel. Stanley v. Lujan, 43 N.M. 348, 93 P.2d 1002; Keller v. Cavanaugh, 64 N.M. 86, 324 P.2d 783; State ex rel. Roberson v. Board of Education of City of Santa Fe, 70 N.M. 261, 372 P.2d 832. Allowance of attorney fees has ......
  • Riggs v. Gardikas
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • May 22, 1967
    ...fees are not recoverable as an item of damages. Lanier v. Securities Acceptance Corp., 74 N.M. 755, 398 P.2d 980; Keller v. Cavanaugh, 64 N.M. 86, 324 P.2d 783. See, also, Banes Agency v. Chino, 60 N.M. 297, 291 P.2d 328. No such authority has been The cause is remanded with direction to va......
  • State ex rel. Roberson v. Board of Ed. of City of Santa Fe
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • May 18, 1962
    ...are not taxed as costs or considered as an item of damages. State ex rel. Stanley v. Lujan, 43 N.M. 348, 93 P.2d 1002; Keller v. Cavanaugh, 64 N.M. 86, 324 P.2d 783. He also argues that Webb v. Beal; supra, Woods v. Fambrough, supra; and Tatavich v. Pettine, supra, are within well-recognize......
  • 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