Toltec Intern., Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, No. 13039
| Docket Nº | No. 13039 |
| Citation | 1980 NMSC 115, 619 P.2d 186, 95 N.M. 82 |
| Case Date | November 12, 1980 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Page 186
v.
VILLAGE OF RUIDOSO, Defendant-Appellant.
[95 N.M. 83]
Page 187
Ronald G. Harris, Ruidoso, for defendant-appellant.Neal & Neal, William G. W. Shoobridge, Hobbs, for plaintiff-appellee.
PAYNE, Justice.
This appeal arises from a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover $7,400 alleged due it from the defendant, the Village of Ruidoso (village), for the construction and delivery of a portable metal tower. The construction of the tower had been ordered by the finance director of the village, but without the authorization of the mayor, the board of trustees of the village or the village purchasing agent. A set of drawings and specifications for the tower, which had been prepared by an architect retained by the village, were delivered to the plaintiff as well as a signed purchase order. The tower was constructed according to the specifications and delivered, as ordered by the finance director, to the race track at Ruidoso Downs. Ruidoso Downs is a completely separate municipality from the Village of Ruidoso. The tower was used by the Lincoln County Mule-O-Rama for mule racing events. It was also designed to be used as a tower at the village's airport and meets the FAA requirements for airport towers. It has never been so used.
The trial court made undisputed findings of fact and conclusions of law that the contract between the plaintiff and the village was illegal and therefore void. These undisputed findings and conclusions are binding upon us on appeal. Shed Industries,[95 N.M. 84]
Page 188
Inc. v. King, 95 N.M. 62, 618 P.2d 1226 (1980); Winrock Enter. v. House of Fabrics of N.M., 91 N.M. 661, 579 P.2d 787 (1978). The theories upon which the court found for the plaintiff were unjust enrichment, quantum valebant and quasi-contract. The village appealed. We reverse.For the plaintiff to recover under any of the three theories listed above, or under the theory of contract by estoppel, which was not properly pled to the court and therefore not considered on appeal, there must be a finding that the village received some benefit from the contract and construction of the tower. See Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 91 N.M. 520, 577 P.2d 418 (1968). Therefore, the key question in this appeal is whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of benefit to the village. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, No. 14120
...where the record also contains evidence which reasonably supports the challenged finding. Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 84, 619 P.2d 186, 188 In order to prove bad faith under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(G) (Repl.Pamp.1987) of the 1987 Act, a claimant is required to s......
-
State v. Rivera, No. 13540
...carried a loaded or unloaded firearm in an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages. Section 30-7-3(A); see also Soto, 95 N.M. at 82, 619 P.2d at Defendant states that the only evidence showing that the Hiway Package Lounge was licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages came thr......
-
Smith v. FDC Corp., No. 18126
...relevant evidence such that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 84, 619 P.2d 186, 188 (1980). We resolve disputed facts in favor of the party prevailing below, indulging all reasonable inferences in favo......
-
DiIaconi v. New Cal Corp., 5319.
...even if we were inclined to do so, for the judgment of the factfinder on this issue. See Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 619 P.2d 186 (1980).III.Having disposed of plaintiffs' specific allegations of misconduct, we turn to the crux of the argument on appeal: that New C......
-
Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, No. 14120
...where the record also contains evidence which reasonably supports the challenged finding. Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 84, 619 P.2d 186, 188 In order to prove bad faith under NMSA 1978, Section 52-1-54(G) (Repl.Pamp.1987) of the 1987 Act, a claimant is required to s......
-
State v. Rivera, No. 13540
...carried a loaded or unloaded firearm in an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages. Section 30-7-3(A); see also Soto, 95 N.M. at 82, 619 P.2d at Defendant states that the only evidence showing that the Hiway Package Lounge was licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages came thr......
-
Smith v. FDC Corp., No. 18126
...relevant evidence such that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 84, 619 P.2d 186, 188 (1980). We resolve disputed facts in favor of the party prevailing below, indulging all reasonable inferences in favo......
-
DiIaconi v. New Cal Corp., 5319.
...even if we were inclined to do so, for the judgment of the factfinder on this issue. See Toltec Int'l, Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 619 P.2d 186 (1980).III.Having disposed of plaintiffs' specific allegations of misconduct, we turn to the crux of the argument on appeal: that New C......