Landavazo v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque

New Mexico Supreme Court

Landavazo v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque

384 P.2d 891, 72 N.M. 456

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 26, 1963

Docket6951

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 384 P.2d 891 (Landavazo v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque) 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

Landavazo v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, 384 P.2d 891, 72 N.M. 456 (N.M. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

MOISE, Justice.

Defendant-appellant was sued by plaintiff-appellee for malicious prosecution. After trial before the court sitting without a jury, findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to plaintiff were entered and a judgment in the amount of $750.00 was awarded..

Defendant has appealed, claiming that the case is controlled by our decision in Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., 47 N.M. 310, 142 P.2d 546, which held that an action would not lie for malicious institution and prosecution of a civil suit without probable cause, absent arrest of the plaintiff, seizure of his property, or injuries other than those necessarily sustained in all ordinary law suits.

It would serve no useful purpose to relate the facts out of which this suit arose. It is sufficient to point out they clearly establish an inexcusable and highly improper course of conduct, including recourse to court procedure by defendant intended to force plaintiff to pay a bill which he clearly did not owe. While in no way wishing to be understood as condoning the conduct of defendant, which we deem to have been most reprehensible, there nevertheless were neither allegations nor proof of arrest, seizure of property of plaintiff, or of damages different from those necessarily incident to most if not all litigation. It follows that Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra, is controlling and it was error for the trial court to hold otherwise.

Plaintiff argues that his allegations are more detailed than those present in Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra. He gains nothing thereby. The allegations and proof here present still fall short of what was there required to establish a cause of action. Neither do the authorities .relied oil by plaintiff persuade ús that' we should ov.cr-; rule Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra. It follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to set aside the judgment, and dismiss the cause with prejudice. It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and CHAVEZ and NOBLE, JJ., concur.

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

MOISE, Justice.

Defendant-appellant was sued by plaintiff-appellee for malicious prosecution. After trial before the court sitting without a jury, findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to plaintiff were entered and a judgment in the amount of $750.00 was awarded..

Defendant has appealed, claiming that the case is controlled by our decision in Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., 47 N.M. 310, 142 P.2d 546, which held that an action would not lie for malicious institution and prosecution of a civil suit without probable cause, absent arrest of the plaintiff, seizure of his property, or injuries other than those necessarily sustained in all ordinary law suits.

It would serve no useful purpose to relate the facts out of which this suit arose. It is sufficient to point out they clearly establish an inexcusable and highly improper course of conduct, including recourse to court procedure by defendant intended to force plaintiff to pay a bill which he clearly did not owe. While in no way wishing to be understood as condoning the conduct of defendant, which we deem to have been most reprehensible, there nevertheless were neither allegations nor proof of arrest, seizure of property of plaintiff, or of damages different from those necessarily incident to most if not all litigation. It follows that Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra, is controlling and it was error for the trial court to hold otherwise.

Plaintiff argues that his allegations are more detailed than those present in Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra. He gains nothing thereby. The allegations and proof here present still fall short of what was there required to establish a cause of action. Neither do the authorities .relied oil by plaintiff persuade ús that' we should ov.cr-; rule Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co., supra. It follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to set aside the judgment, and dismiss the cause with prejudice. It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and CHAVEZ and NOBLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 P.2d 891, 72 N.M. 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landavazo-v-credit-bureau-of-albuquerque-nm-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack