Petty v. Williams
| Decision Date | 30 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7048,7048 |
| Citation | 378 P.2d 376,71 N.M. 338,1963 NMSC 18 |
| Parties | E. W. PETTY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dudley M. WILLIAMS, d/b/a New Mexico Hearing Center, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
R. F. Deacon Arledge, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Leonard L. Pickering, Albuquerque, for appellee.
This action was instituted by the appellee against the appellant and Radioear Corporation to recover the price paid for certain Radioear Stereo Hearing-Aid Glasses. The trial court found that it had no jurisdiction over Radioear Corporation and dismissed it from the proceeding. No appeal was taken from this judgment of dismissal and the action is before us on an appeal by the appellant Williams for a judgment in favor of the appellee for the refund of the purchase price in the sum of $630.50, with interest thereon from December 19, 1959, the date of the return to Williams of the Hearing-Aid Glasses.
The district court made extensive findings of fact, none of which are attacked, either by point or argument, as not being based upon substantial evidence. The facts so found must therefore be accepted by us as the facts upon which we base our decision. Covington v. Rutledge Drilling Co., 71 N.M. 120, 376 P.2d 180; Town of Mesilla v. Mesilla Design Center & Book Store, 71 N.M. 124, 376 P.2d 183.
It requires no citation of authority to support the oft repeated rule that this court will not search the record in an attempt to discover errors committed by the trial court. If error has been committed against the appellant, he must, in an appropriate 'point' call it to our attention and demonstrate the error by argument and citation of authorities in support of his position. If the alleged error be a finding of fact not supported by substantial evidence, the particular finding must be quoted, Bogle v. Potter, 68 N.M. 239, 360 P.2d 650, and under Rule 15(6), it is provided:
The appellant states his Points Relied on For Reversal as follows:
'POINT ONE
'The trial court committed error in failing to render judgment for the defendant as a matter of law.
'POINT TWO
'The learned trial court committed error in its Conclusion of Law II as follows: 'That the failure of the Hearing-Aid Glasses to give plaintiff normal or near normal hearing ability and comfort and to improve plaintiff's hearing to his satisfaction amounted to a failure of consideration.'
'POINT THREE
'The learned trial court committed error in its Conclusion of Law III as follows: 'That the failure of defendant Williams to refund plaintiff's purchase price amounted to a breach of express warranty of the two-year unconditional guarantee.'
'POINT FOUR
'The learned trial court committed error in its Conclusion of Law IV as follows: 'That the conduct of defendant Williams in this transaction amounts to unjust enrichment.'
'POINT FIVE
'The learned trial court committed error in its Conclusion of Law V as follows: 'That plaintiff is entitled to a rescission of the conditional contract of sale and a full refund of his purchase price."
It is obvious that a consideration of the above quoted 'Points' requires, as to each, a review of the facts found by the trial court and a determination as to whether those facts afford a proper basis for the court's conclusions of law and for the judgment entered thereon. The appellant did not in his brief copy, at any place, the findings of fact made by the trial court. Neither did the appellee, at any place in his brief, attempt to copy or summarize the facts as found by the trial court.
In order to construct an argument under the stated points the appellant under the heading 'Statement of Facts' summarized excerpts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Riggsbee
...such a general attack as appellant makes here, but demands the errors claimed to be specifically stated and argued. See Petty v. Williams, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376; Town of Mesilla v. Mesilla Design Center & Book Store, Inc., 71 N.M. 124, 376 P.2d We do not believe that the rule is differe......
-
State v. Weber
...upon which the trial court may be reversed. State ex rel. Wilson v. Board of County Comm'rs., 62 N.M. 137, 306 P.2d 259; Petty v. Williams, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. Every presumption favors the correctness of any ruling or decision of the trial court, and a party alleging error must be ab......
-
Alvarez v. Alvarez
...Bogle v. Potter, supra; Town of Mesilla v. Mesilla Design Center and Book Store, Inc., 71 N.M. 124, 376 P.2d 183; Petty v. Williams, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. Rule 15(6) quoted above was promulgated to insure that where findings are attacked, the briefs would set forth any facts pertinent ......
-
Gish v. Hart
...the decision of this court must be based. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Suburban Telephone Co., supra; Petty v. Williams, 1963, 71 N.M. 338, 378 P.2d 376. The court, in Sundt v. Tobin Quarries, supra, 'The defendant stated the substance of the testimony favorable to its con......