SANCHEZ v. GATTAS

• Decision Date: 30 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. 5262,5262
• Citation: 54 N.M. 224,219 P.2d 962
• Parties: SANCHEZ v. GATTAS et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

54 N.M. 224

219 P.2d 962

SANCHEZ

v.GATTAS et al.

No. 5262.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 30, 1950.

[219 P.2d 962, 54 N.M. 225]

W. T. O'Sullivan, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Simms, Modrall, Seymour & Simms, Albuquerque, Joseph E. Roehl, Albuquerque, for appellees.

McGHEE, Justice.

We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court.

This is an action for conversion and the record contains the story of the passing of a name long famous in New Mexico, the 'White Elephant' bar, the rendezvous of the sporting fraternity and political leaders in preprohibition days when it was located at Second and Central in Albuquerque. Following the passing of the prohibition era the 'White Elephant' was opened in south Albuquerque with a different class of trade. We will skip much of the story and start where the plaintiff entered the picture.

The license and title to the bar stood in the name of liquor inspector Bruno and three others who sold to the defendants, who, in turn, sold to the plaintiff and another on a harsh conditional sales contract, but the license was left in the name of Bruno. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff took over the interest of his associate. He had paid approximately two-thirds of the purchase price of $15,000 and was not in default in the deferred payments at the time of the claimed conversion.

On Sunday, March 30, 1947, according to the testimony of the plaintiff, he was in the bar at peace with the world and engaged in preparing his bank deposit for the following day while his wife and two friends were impatiently waiting for him to complete his task so they could all go for an airplane ride. The 'roof fell in on him,' and he found himself stripped of his bar and business in a remarkably short time, in the manner following:

Just as he was completing his task, Chief of Division of Liquor Control Tom Montoya, (hereafter styled Chief) accompanied by one of his inspectors, began pounding on the door and loudly demanded admittance; upon being admitted the Chief accused him of serving liquor on Sunday and ordered that he forthwith close the place and keep it closed until he, Montoya, gave permission for its reopening, although under the law he must give a hearing before he can close a bar. The plaintiff denied that any liquorhad been served, but closed the place and left with his wife and friends for the plane ride. The next day, without notice to the plaintiff, the Chief transferred the license from Bruno to the defendants and then issued a new license to them. A notice to show cause why the license should not be cancelled for serving liquor on Sunday, March 30, was then issued directed to the defendants. Shortly thereafter the defendants with their attorney, O. N. Marron, came to Santa Fe and brought the plaintiff with them. They went to the offices of the Chief, who then, presumably,had cast off the garb of an arresting officer, and was sitting in his private office as judge and executioner. The attorney alone went into the private office, closed the door and there negotiated a 'compromise' on behalf of these defendants under the terms of which they paid the Chief the sum of $500.00 for the use of the State and agreed that the bar would not be again opened in the same location. The plaintiff testified that all of this was done without his...