Paulos v. Janetakos
Decision Date | 08 September 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 4427.,4427. |
Citation | 43 N.M. 327,93 P.2d 989 |
Parties | PAULOSv.JANETAKOS et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Thomas J. Mabry, Judge.
Action by Louis Paulos against William B. Janetakos, individually, and William B. Janetakos, as executor of the estate of Mary Cornetto Janetakos, deceased. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The mere making of unnecessary and superfluous findings or the presence of error in findings on immaterial, irrelevant, or purely collateral issues is harmless and nonreversible error if the judgment is otherwise sufficiently supported.
Owen B. Marron and Gino J. Matteucci, both of Albuquerque, for appellant.
John F. Simms, Augustus T. Seymour, and Robert Hoath LaFollette, all of Albuquerque, for appellees.
This is the second appeal of this case. The first appeal was from a judgment of dismissal upon a motion, which we treated as a demurrer to the evidence, made by defendant at the close of plaintiff's case. A new trial was awarded. See Paulos v. Janetakos, 41 N.M. 534, 72 P.2d 1. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of defendant after such new trial. For the facts in the case see our opinion on the former appeal.
Appellant (plaintiff below) assigns as error certain findings of fact made by the trial court, some of which appear in the trial court's opinion and some of which were defendant's requested findings of fact which were adopted by the court.
The ground of attack upon the findings before us for review is that they are outside the issues framed in the pleadings or are contrary to uncontradicted evidence introduced on behalf of appellant. Before considering in detail the various findings objected to, we must first inquire: Deleting entirely such findings of fact as appellant claims are objectionable, do there remain sufficient findings upon which to sustain the judgment?
The issues in the case, as set out in appellant's brief are:
[1] Defendant's Requested Finding No. 8, which was adopted by the court, is as follows: “The plaintiff failed to do and perform the things on his part, which he alleges in the complaint it was his duty to do under the contract, which he claims he made with Mary Cornetto.” This finding is not here attacked on any ground, and being supported by substantial evidence and not being contradicted by or inconsistent with other findings attacked, is determinative of the issues in the case, and is, therefore, sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court.
[2] Hence, it is needless to discuss further appellant's objections to other findings or decide whether such findings are immaterial or outside the issues. See 5 C.J.S., Appeal & Error, § 1787, where under a head note as follows: “The mere making of unnecessary and superfluous findings or the presence of error in findings on immaterial, irrelevant, or purely collateral issues is harmless and non-reversible error if the judgment is otherwise sufficiently supported”, it is said:
“Reversible error cannot be found in the mere fact that the court makes superfluous and unnecessary findings.
“A judgment supported by proper findings is not vitiated by findings on immaterial points or issues, for example, on issues outside the pleadings or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paulos v. Janetakos.
...72 P. 2d 1) the case was tried a second time, resulting in a decree for the appellee which was affirmed by this court. Paulos v. Janetakos, 43 N.M. 327, 93 P.2d 989. In 1936, while the equity suit was pending, the appellant filed this action at law, consisting of two counts, the second of w......
-
Garcia v. Color Tile Distributing Co.
...73 N.M. 320, 388 P.2d 50; Board of County Com'rs of Dona Ana County v. Little, 1964, 74 N.M. 605, 396 P.2d 591; and Paulos v. Janetakos, 1939, 43 N.M. 327, 93 P.2d 989. It is implicit in the findings made by the trial court that the defendant knew, or should have known, that mosturre would ......
-
Gurule v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Economic Opportunity Bd.
...substantial evidence are not essential to the judgment of the trial court and will not be considered. As was stated in Paulos v. Janetakos, 43 N.M. 327, 93 P.2d 989 (1939), 'The mere making of unnecessary and superfluous findings or the presence of error in findings on immaterial, irrelevan......
-
Koeber v. Apex-Albuq Phoenix Exp.
...sufficient findings upon which to sustain the judgment. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Local 890, 56 N.M. 447, 245 P.2d 156; Paulos v. Janetakos, 43 N.M. 327, 93 P.2d 989. Phillips v. Allingham, 38 N.M. 361, 33 P.2d 910 quoted the following note from 7 A.L.R. 749 with 'It is well settled that a cou......