Sproles v. McDonald

• Decision Date: 25 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 7409,7409
• Parties: Elizabeth J. SPROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George McDONALD and Laura McDonald, his wife, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 584

392 P.2d 584

74 N.M. 243

Elizabeth J. SPROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George McDONALD and Laura McDonald, his wife,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 7409.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 25, 1964.

C. C. Chase, Jr., Alamogordo, for appellant.

H. Elfred Jones, Carrizoze, E. Forrest Sanders, Wm. W. Bivins, Las Cruces, for appellees.

CHAVEZ, Justice.

This is the second time that this case comes before us. In our prior opinion found in 70 N.M. 168, 372 P.2d 122, wherein the facts are stated, we ordered the case reversed and remanded to the district court:

'with instructions to set aside the judgment heretofore entered and to then consider the equities, and to make findings and conclusions and to enter its judgment thereon, all in a manner not inconsistent herewith. * * *'

A mandate was issued to the district court of Lincoln County, repeating the order expressed in the opinion and, on July 23, 1962, the district court entered an order reinstating the cause upon the docket, and further ordering that:

'* * * counsel for the respective parties hereto submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law conforming to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico within 15 days from date hereof.'

On the same day, counsel for appellant submitted requested findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On August 6, 1962, appellees filed a motion in which they made an offer that they felt was fair and equitable and would constitute a balancing of the equities; the offer being a relinquishment of their claim to that portion of land where appellant's improvements were located and being more particularly described as follows:

'* * * a portion of the 420-foot strip commencing at a point at the northeast corner of Section 32 and running southerly for a distance of 631 feet along the easterly boundary of Section 32, thence west a distance of 420 feet to the westerly boundary of the 420-foot strip, * * *.'

Appellees filed their requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which incorporated their offer, on August 6, 1962.

A hearing was held on August 17, 1962, in which appellees' counsel were present, but appellant's counsel was not, although the judgment recites that he had notice and he does not attack the form of the judgment. As a result of that hearing, the district court, having considered the equities and having made findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered the following 'Judgment on the Mandate':

'(a) That the equitable relief and injunction as sought by the defendants against the plaintiff as to that portion of the disputed 420-foot strip upon which the plaintiff's improvements lie and which is more particularly described in the findings of fact, be and the same is hereby denied;

'(b) That the equitable relief and injunction sought by the defendants against the plaintiff as to the balance of the disputed 420-foot strip, be and the same is hereby granted, and the plaintiff be and she is hereby enjoined from occupancy of the disputed...