Latta v. Harvey, No. 6556

• Docket Nº: No. 6556
• Citation: 1960 NMSC 46, 352 P.2d 649, 67 N.M. 72
• Case Date: May 25, 1960
• Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico

Page 649

352 P.2d 649 67 N.M. 72 John LATTA, d/b/a A & L Drilling Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Buck HARVEY, Dick Bokum and Jack Garrett, Defendants-Appellants. No. 6556. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 25, 1960.

[67 N.M. 73] Lyle E. Teutsch, Jr., Thomas A. Donnelly, Santa Fe, for appellants.

[67 N.M. 74] Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellee.

Page 650

CARMODY, Justice.

Motion for rehearing having been filed, we have reached the conclusion that the former opinion entered in this case should be withdrawn and that the following should be substituted therefor.

Opinion

Defendant Bokum appeals from a judgment against him on a suit for the value of drilling work and for the furnishing of standby equipment and services.

Two questions are raised by the appellant, (1) failure of appellee to comply with the contractors' licensing statute, and (2) refusal of the trial court to reopen the case for further testimony.

Latta was hired by Bokum's agent and codefendant, Garrett, to do work on a water well on the Harvey ranch. This work was not successful, so the parties agreed that Latta would drill a second hole. After this, at Bokum's request, Latta did additional work on the first well. Thereafter, Latta moved his equipment to Grants to await orders for core drilling work for Bokum.

Appellee did not plead or prove that he held a contractor's license, but the trial court made certain findings and conclusions as to the relationship between Latta and Bokum. The pertinent findings as to this are:

'4. That Jack Garrett was at all material times herein an employee of the Defendant, Dick Bokum, and that the business of said defendant and counter-claimant, is and at all material times was, the exploration and development of properties for uranium.'

'6. That on or about July 28, 1956 plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement, whereby plaintiff was to clean out and deepen an existing well in Torrance County, New Mexico.'

'7. That the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff at the rate of $15.00 per hour for such work, and in addition, to pay the costs of moving plaintiff's equipment from Grants, New Mexico, to the site of the well.'

'9. That defendant instructed plaintiff to acidize said well, which plaintiff did, at a cost of $475.00 for acid and expenses from the well site to Farmington and Hobbs, and $400.00 for the use of plaintiff's equipment.'

'10. That during the month of August, 1956, defendant employed plaintiff to perform drilling subject to directions and supervision of the defendant and his employees at an agreed rate of $2.00 per foot.'

'12. That on or about the 31st day of August, 1956, Jack Garrett, acting as agent for and in behalf of defendant [67 N.M. 75] employed plaintiff to perform drilling work subject to the direction and supervision of defendant and his employees at or near Grants, New Mexico, and further instructed plaintiff to acquire an air compressor to be used in such...