Paulos v. Janetakos

Decision Date08 September 1939
Docket NumberNo. 4427.,4427.
Citation43 N.M. 327,93 P.2d 989
PartiesPAULOSv.JANETAKOS et al.
CourtNew 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.

BICKLEY, Chief Justice.

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. Was there a contract such as that alleged in the complaint between plaintiff and decedent?

“2. Did plaintiff perform his obligations under the contract?

“3. Were the circumstances such as would justify a court of equity in decreeing specific performance of the contract?”

[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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Paulos v. Janetakos.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1942
    ...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......
  • Paulos v. Janetakos
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1942
    ...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 wh......
  • Garcia v. Color Tile Distributing Co.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1965
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • July 14, 1972
    ...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......
  • 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