Tabet v. Davenport
Decision Date | 28 August 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 5648,5648 |
Citation | 260 P.2d 722,1953 NMSC 76,57 N.M. 540 |
Parties | TABET v. DAVENPORT et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
J. J. DeWeerd, Farmington, Thomas N. Keltner, Albuquerque, for appellants.
Tibo J. Chavez and Denis Cowper, Belen, for appellee.
The plaintiff, appellee here, filed suits below against four owners of separate lots upon which Seth Manning, as contractor, had built houses for the individual defendants, to foreclose a lien for materials furnished such contractor. Claims against other owners were settled. The defendant Herman Bosse had three houses built and the other defendants each had one house constructed. The cases were consolidated below and are here on one appeal by defendants from a judgment foreclosing the liens.
The plaintiff lives in Belen, New Mexico, where he had a considerable stock of plumbing supplies and building materials for sale, and the contractor compiled a list of such materials needed in the construction of the six houses and purchased them on credit from the plaintiff. One load was hauled from Belen in a two-ton truck driven by the contractor's employee to Farmington where the houses were being built, and two loads were later hauled to Farmington in half-ton trucks, one of which was driven by the contractor and the other by one of his employees.
The principal points in controversy are whether the materials were allocated to the individual houses at the time of the sale, or were sold to the contractor on his individual creditf and, further, whether such materials were used in the construction of the individual houses, or that it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish such use.
The building materials were stored in a garage on one of the lots in Farmington while the plumbing materials were put in the warehouse of the contractor who was also operating a general plumbing business in Farmington.
The controlling findings of fact made by the trial court are:
It will be noted the finding of fact was not that the materials were actually used in the construction of the respective houses, but they or their equal were used; also to be noted is the finding the allocation of the materials to the particular houses was made at the time of the delivery or 'shortly thereafter' and by agreement between the plaintiff and Manning the materials were segregated as to the particular job to which they were chargeable. These, we believe, are the most favorable findings for the plaintiff which could be made from the record, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cubit Corp. v. Hausler
...case law for guidance. See Lembke Constr. Co. v. J.D. Coggins Co., 72 N.M. 259, 261, 382 P.2d 983, 984 (1963); Tabet v. Davenport, 57 N.M. 540, 542, 260 P.2d 722, 723 (1953). Our discussion of this issue will consider relevant case law from other jurisdictions as Under present New Mexico la......
-
Vulcraft, a Div. of Nucor Corp. v. Midtown Business Park, Ltd.
...is modeled after the California statute and interpretation of that statute is persuasive as guidance to us. Tabet v. Davenport, 57 N.M. 540, 542, 260 P.2d 722, 723 (1953).3 Initially, we point out that the actions of the parties, or their perceptions of their status, are not dispositive to ......
-
Lembke Const. Co. v. J. D. Coggins Co.
...changed until 1911. Ackerson v. Albuquerque, 38 N.M. 191, 29 P.2d 714; Allison v. Schuler, 38 N.M. 506, 36 P.2d 519; Tabet v. Davenport, 57 N.M. 540, 260 P.2d 722; Chavez v. Sedillo, 59 N.M. 357, 284 P.2d 1026. This court has consistently followed the pertinent decisions of the California c......
-
Layrite Products Co. v. Lux
...Liens, § 75, p. 62; 39 A.L.R.2d § 1, p. 397, n. 4. See also Andrew v. Dubeau, 154 Me. 254, 146 A.2d 761 (1958); Tabet v. Davenport, 57 N.M. 540, 260 P.2d 722 (1953); Ohio Oil Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 112 Ind. App. 452, 42 N.E.2d 406 (1942); W.P. Fuller & Co. v. Fleisher, 63 Cal.App. 7......