WHITFIELD v. CITY BUS LINES, No. 5034

Docket NºNo. 5034
Citation187 P.2d 947, 51 N.M. 434
Case DateDecember 09, 1947
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico
51 N.M. 434
187 P.2d 947


WHITFIELD et al.
v.
CITY BUS LINES, Inc., et al.


No. 5034.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 9, 1947.

187 P.2d 948, 51 N.M. 435

George A. Shipley, of Alamogordo, and Donovan Hoover, of Santa Fe, for appellants.

J. B. Newell and Edwin Mechem, both of Las Cruces, Bert Newland, of Deming, and H. A. Kiker, of Santa Fe, for appellees.

C. C. McCulloh, Atty. Gen., and Robert V. Wollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellees' motion for rehearing, we have withdrawn the original opinion and substituted the following as the opinion of the court.

COMPTON, Justice.

Appellants and others instituted this proceeding to restrain appellees from unlawfully engaging in the business of transporting passengers for hire over routes covered by appellants. From an adverse judgment

51 N.M. 436
appellants W. E. Whitfield, Jr., Hugh C. Whitfield and Mary E. Whitfield, individually and as joint executors of the estate of W. E. Whitfield, deceased, bring this appeal.

Appellants asserted that they were operating local passenger service by means of motor busses between Las Cruces, State College, Mesilla Park and Mesilla, in Dona

187 P.2d 949
Ana County over U. S. Highway 80 and State Road 28, under authority of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to them by the State Corporation Commission of New Mexico. They further allege as a fact that appellees, without a certificate of convenience and necessity, wrongfully and unlawfully, and in violation of the rights of appellants, operated busses and motor vehicles, in the transportation of passengers for hire, over highways and routes and between points covered by the schedules and transportation business of appellants, and 'that the defendants in the operation of said vehicles, as aforesaid, are engaged in the business of 'Common Motor Carrier' as defined by the New Mexico Motor Carrier Act.'

By a general denial, issue was joined. At the conclusion of the trial the court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law, except those deemed unnecessary to a decision, as follows:

'1. The plaintiffs W. E. Whitfield, Jr., Hugh C. Whitfield and Mary E. Whitfield, individually and as joint executors of the estate of W. E. Whitfield, deceased, at all times material were and now are engaged in the transportation business under the style of 'W. E. Whitfield and Sons,' and in the operation of said business are the holders of a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, duly issued by the State Corporation Commission of the State of New Mexico, authorizing the transportation of passengers for hire between Las Cruces in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and Mesilla (commonly known as Old Mesilla), Mesilla Park, and State College, all in said county, over U. S. Highway No. 80, State Road No. 28 and State College Road.'

'2. At all of the times material hereto the said W. E. Whitfield and Sons have been and now are engaged in the business of transporting passengers for hire to and fro between Las Cruces, Mesilla (commonly known as Old Mesilla), Mesilla Park and State College, all in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, by means of motor buses.'

'4. The defendants, C. G. Newland, Jesse B. Lydick and Robert Y. McMillin, at all of the times material hereto, since about the 3rd of September, 1946 and until restrained from so doing, by preliminary injunction herein, have been engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire, under the style of 'City Bus Lines,' by means of motor vehicles or motor buses, to and fro between Las Cruces, Mesilla, (commonly

51 N.M. 437
known as Old Mesilla), Mesilla Park and State College, all in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, over U. S. Highway 80, State Road No. 28 and State College Road. The said roads and highway are public highways of the State of New Mexico.'

'5. The defendants Newland, Lydick and McMillin have not been granted Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity by the Corporation Commission of New Mexico and are not holders nor in possession of any Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing them or permitting them to transport passengers for hire over the public highways of the State of New Mexico between Las Cruces, Mesilla Park and State College.'

'10. That at the time of the institution of this suit and prior thereto the defendants, Jesse B. Lydick, C. G. Newland and Robert Y. McMillin, were engaged in operating passenger buses for hire over a route lying partly within...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Metropolitan Development and Hous. v. Eaton
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 2006
    ...opposite party. Authorities supporting this rule are assembled in the annotations in 130 ALR 440, et seq." Whitfield v. City Bus Lines, 51 N.M. 434, 187 P.2d 947, 950 The power of eminent domain as granted to housing authorities under Chapter 20, Section 11 of the Public Acts of 1935 (E.S.)......
  • Baca v. Bueno Foods, No. 10542
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 8, 1988
    ...statute, it is unnecessary to do so, such being matters of defense to be raised by the opposite party. Whitfield v. City Bus Lines, Inc., 51 N.M. 434, 438, 187 P.2d 947, 950 (1947). See Page 1337 [108 N.M. 103] Annotation, Burden of Allegation and Proof in Civil Cases as Regards Exception i......
  • BRITT v. COLLUM, No. 5056
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 23, 1947
    ...amended where testimony not admissible under the pleadings was admitted without objection, but we are hardly prepared to hold that when51 N.M. 434tested by a motion to dismiss a plaintiff may aid his complaint by a tender of testimony. The assignments of error relate to the refusal of the c......
3 cases
  • Metropolitan Development and Hous. v. Eaton
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 2006
    ...opposite party. Authorities supporting this rule are assembled in the annotations in 130 ALR 440, et seq." Whitfield v. City Bus Lines, 51 N.M. 434, 187 P.2d 947, 950 The power of eminent domain as granted to housing authorities under Chapter 20, Section 11 of the Public Acts of 1935 (E.S.)......
  • Baca v. Bueno Foods, No. 10542
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 8, 1988
    ...statute, it is unnecessary to do so, such being matters of defense to be raised by the opposite party. Whitfield v. City Bus Lines, Inc., 51 N.M. 434, 438, 187 P.2d 947, 950 (1947). See Page 1337 [108 N.M. 103] Annotation, Burden of Allegation and Proof in Civil Cases as Regards Exception i......
  • BRITT v. COLLUM, No. 5056
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 23, 1947
    ...amended where testimony not admissible under the pleadings was admitted without objection, but we are hardly prepared to hold that when51 N.M. 434tested by a motion to dismiss a plaintiff may aid his complaint by a tender of testimony. The assignments of error relate to the refusal of the c......

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