Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc., No. 6701

Docket NºNo. 6701
Citation68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134, 1961 NMSC 10
Case DateJanuary 31, 1961
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

Page 134

359 P.2d 134
68 N.M. 97
Robert P. PORTER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT PORTER & SONS, INC., a Corporation, Robert Porter
Investment Corporation, a Corporation, Wayne
Hudspeth, Herman Pitts, U. V. Skaggs, H.
M. Black and J. D. Bavousett,
Defendants-
Appellees.
No. 6701.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Jan. 31, 1961.

[68 NM 97] Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb and John P. Eastham, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Garland & Martin, Las Cruces, for appellees.

MOISE, Justice.

In the complaint filed in this cause the plaintiff has sued Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. and Robert Porter Investment Corporation, together with the directors of the [68 NM 98] two corporations and one other individual in four counts. Under the first count it is alleged that the salaries of the defendant, who is not a director, and of one of the directors and possibly others have been raised by the defendants who are directors and prays that such action in raising salaries be set aside and any amounts received as increased salary be repaid to the corporation, and for attorney fees and costs. This count is based on the fact that in a previous suit between the same parties to determine the ownership of the controlling interest in the two corporations, an audit was being made pursuant to a Supreme Court mandate, and that the action of the directors in increasing salaries was contrary to the interest of the plaintiff.

In the second count plaintiff alleged that the defendant directors have or are about to take certain actions contrary to his interests and asks that they be enjoined from issuing any stock in Robert Porter & Sons, Inc.; from declaring any dividends in the corporation; from transferring any assets except in the ordinary course of business; from interfering with the relations of the corporation and its customers and suppliers; from authorizing any salary increases; and generally from doing anything to disturb the status of the corporation

Page 135

pending determination of ownership of the majority of stock in the corporation.

The third count is similar to count two except it applies to Robert Porter Investment Corporation.

Count four alleges that plaintiff is the owner of a 7/16 interest in certain real property occupied by Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. as an office and warehouse, and that he has not been paid his share of the rent thereon, and he asks that said corporation be ordered to pay him his share of back and accruing rent.

A restraining order as prayed in courts two and three was issued by Judge Reidy upon presentation of the complaint, and the matter was set for hearing on the application for a temporary injunction.

To the complaint the defendants filed a lengthy motion to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order. This motion discloses a state of facts necessary for an understanding of the situation confronting the court which resulted in Judge Reidy recusing himself and designating Judge John R. Brand of the Fifth Judicial District to preside in the cause. After a hearing an order was entered by Judge Brand dissolving the injunction or restraining order entered by Judge Reidy and dismissing this action and ordering plaintiff not to file in any other court any further actions involving the subject matter in dispute in this cause, without first obtaining permission from [68 NM 99] the court. It is from this order that this appeal is prosecuted.

The order appealed from has a lengthy narrative recital of the history of the litigation which is generally uncontroverted and which we now condense as much as possible.

The plaintiff Robert P. Porter, Jr., formerly a resident of the state of New York, together with his brother Harry C. Porter, a resident of New Mexico, are the sons of Robert P. Porter, Sr., and Alice Porter, both now deceased. The parents had been divorced in 1936 but their property rights were never settled. Alice Porter died in 1953 and, thereafter, the father Robert P. Porter, Sr., prior to his death commenced suit in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, where he lived and the corporation had its main place of business, against the two sons, seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the ownership of the stock in the two corporations involved herein. This action which was cause No. 13,560 on the docket of the district court of Dona Ana County was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court and resulted in a conclusion that all property of Alice Porter and the plaintiff was community property as of the date of the divorce, and a mandate issued to the trial court to order an accounting between the parties based upon such conclusion. This case is Porter v. Porter, 65 N.M. 14, 331 P.2d 360. Such accounting is in process.

After the mandate and during the period when the accounting was taking place, according to appellant's statement of facts, not controverted by appellees, suit was filed by the two brothers against Robert P. Porter & Sons, Inc. (there is some dispute as to whether Robert Porter Investment Corporation was involved in this suit--it was not a named party) and various directors, officers and employees of that corporation to restrain issuance of 480...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., Nos. 11988
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • August 29, 1980
    ...of the Court. General Services Corp. v. Board of Com'rs, 75 N.M. 550, 552, 408 P.2d 51, 53 (1965); Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc., 68 N.M. 97, 101, 359 P.2d 134, 137 (1961). These we have also Although the briefs of all three parties are articulate forensic efforts, each, in one form ......
  • 1998 -NMSC- 25, Srader v. Verant, Nos. 24136
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • July 20, 1998
    ...(1961) (reviewing court will not decide academic or moot questions or grant party unavailing relief); Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc., 68 N.M. 97, 102, 359 P.2d 134, 137 (1961) (holding that the Supreme Court will not decide questions where no actual relief will be afforded); Crist v. ......
  • Law v. New Mex. Human Servs. Dep't, No. A-1-CA-36283
    • United States
    • May 16, 2019
    ...a case and therefore is not binding as a rule of law."). I cannot concur. See Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. , 1961-NMSC-010, ¶ 18, 68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134, ("[O]n appeal this Court will not make useless orders nor grant relief that will avail appellant nothing, and neither will it d......
  • Conservatorship C.G. v. McEachern, NO. A-1-CA-35613
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 29, 2019
    ...became effective following entry of the order from which Richards appeals. See Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. , 1961-NMSC-010, ¶ 18, 68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134, ("[O]n appeal [the appellate courts] will not ... decide questions that are abstract, hypothetical or moot[.]"); Kysar v. BP A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., s. 11988
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • August 29, 1980
    ...of the Court. General Services Corp. v. Board of Com'rs, 75 N.M. 550, 552, 408 P.2d 51, 53 (1965); Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc., 68 N.M. 97, 101, 359 P.2d 134, 137 (1961). These we have also Although the briefs of all three parties are articulate forensic efforts, each, in one form ......
  • 1998 -NMSC- 25, Srader v. Verant, s. 24136
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • July 20, 1998
    ...(1961) (reviewing court will not decide academic or moot questions or grant party unavailing relief); Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc., 68 N.M. 97, 102, 359 P.2d 134, 137 (1961) (holding that the Supreme Court will not decide questions where no actual relief will be afforded); Crist v. ......
  • Law v. New Mex. Human Servs. Dep't, A-1-CA-36283
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 16, 2019
    ...a case and therefore is not binding as a rule of law."). I cannot concur. See Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. , 1961-NMSC-010, ¶ 18, 68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134, ("[O]n appeal this Court will not make useless orders nor grant relief that will avail appellant nothing, and neither will it d......
  • Conservatorship C.G. v. McEachern, A-1-CA-35613
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 29, 2019
    ...became effective following entry of the order from which Richards appeals. See Porter v. Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. , 1961-NMSC-010, ¶ 18, 68 N.M. 97, 359 P.2d 134, ("[O]n appeal [the appellate courts] will not ... decide questions that are abstract, hypothetical or moot[.]"); Kysar v. BP A......
  • 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