Gonzales v. Allison & Haney, Inc.

379 P.2d 772, 71 N.M. 478
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1963
Docket7076
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 379 P.2d 772 (Gonzales v. Allison & Haney, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gonzales v. Allison & Haney, Inc., 379 P.2d 772, 71 N.M. 478 (N.M. 1963).

Opinion

NOBLE, Justice.

Defendants have appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding claimant total temporary disability of 26 weeks and partial permanent disability of 45% on account of an injury occurring on October 10, 1958.

Complaint is made for the first time on appeal that by its instructions 7, 8, 9 and 10, the court charged the jury upon an issue not presented by the pleadings. We have repeatedly said that the specific vice in the challenged instruction must be pointed out and a ruling of the trial court invoked thereon to preserve the claimed error for appeal. Zamora v. Smalley, 68 N.M. 45, 358 P.2d 362; Louderbough v. Heimbach, 68 N.M. 124, 359 P.2d 518; Alford v. Drum, 68 N.M. 298, 361 P.2d 451; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 257 P.2d 915. In the absence of objections to the instructions sufficient to suggest the error now urged, this court said in Louderbough v. Heimbach, supra:

“ * * * It follows, therefore, that the instructions, right or wrong, cannot be reviewed for error here for the first time.”

See, also, Warren v. Spurck, 64 N.M. 106, 325 P.2d 284.

It is also contended that the challenged instructions charged the jury upon a question on which there is no evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence to which the instructions complained of are directed. A review of the record convinces us that defendants’ contention is without merit. Attorneys fees in the sum of $500.00 will be awarded to claimant for attorneys fees on this appeal. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. Teague
631 P.2d 1314 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1981)
Cooper v. Curry
589 P.2d 201 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1979)
Cabot v. First National Bank of Santa Fe
474 P.2d 478 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1970)
Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company
428 P.2d 625 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)
Gould v. Brown Construction Company
401 P.2d 100 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 P.2d 772, 71 N.M. 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-allison-haney-inc-nm-1963.