Martin v. Village of Hot Springs

• Decision Date: 06 November 1929
• Docket Number: 3260.
• Citation: 282 P. 273,34 N.M. 411,1929 -NMSC- 090
• Parties: MARTIN et al. v. VILLAGE OF HOT SPRINGS et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

282 P. 273

34 N.M. 411, 1929 -NMSC- 090

MARTIN et al. v. VILLAGE OF HOT SPRINGS et al.

No. 3260.

Supreme Court of New Mexico

November 6, 1929

Syllabus bye the Court..

It is not error to reject evidence or contentions directed to questions foreign to the issues.

Findings of the trial court supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

Questions not raised in the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Certain documents excluded from evidence not having been incorporated in the record, we are unable to review the rulings.

There being sufficient competent evidence to support the findings and judgment, the admission of incompetent evidence not shown to be prejudicial is not reversible error.

Appeal from District Court, Sierra County; Ryan, Judge.

Action by Robert Martin and another, doing business under the firm name and style of Hot Springs Water Company, against the Village of Hot Springs and others. From the judgment plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed and cause remanded,

See also, 268 P. 568.

E. D Tittmann, of El Paso, Tex., and E. L. Medler, of Los Angeles Cal., for appellants.

James G. Fitch, of Socorro, for appellees.

CATRON J.

Plaintiffs being the owners of a water plant and system, by which, under franchise, the inhabitants of defendant village were served, contracted with the village to sell to it, the latter agreeing to buy "all such portion of the plant now owned by party of the first part (plaintiffs) erected for the purpose of supplying water to the Village of Hot Springs, and consisting of all equipment now in use to supply water to the inhabitants of said Village of Hot Springs, to which the party of the first part has title, at the present value of the property hereby agreed to be sold, which actual value shall be determined by three appraisers." The contract provided for payment in cash of the "actual value" within a reasonable time after it had been determined. With consent of plaintiffs, the village took immediate possession, and has since operated the plant and retained the revenues. Its reasonable value at the date of the contract was $3,945.78.

Upon these facts, here stated in their substance as found by the trial court, plaintiffs recovered, and now appeal from, a judgment for the amount stated, with interest from date of recovery, and without costs.

1. Certain assignments of error are predicated upon the contention...