Standard Oil Co. of California v. Brown

New Mexico Supreme Court

Standard Oil Co. of California v. Brown

52 P.2d 1089, 40 N.M. 18

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 16, 1935

DocketNo. 4094.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 P.2d 1089 (Standard Oil Co. of California v. Brown) 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

Standard Oil Co. of California v. Brown, 52 P.2d 1089, 40 N.M. 18 (N.M. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

ZINN, Justice.

Appellant brought suit against appellee for the sum of $227.70, for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by appellant to appel-lee. Appellee answered denying the indebtedness and alleged that appellant owed appellee $20 for hauling sand and $500 damages for failing to furnish an air compressor, failure to grade up certain lots, failure to change certain pumps to a new location, and for diggjng certain tank holes and not changing pumps which appellant agreed to do, and thereby causing appellee damages resulting from loss of business.

The cause was tried to the court, who awarded appellant judgment in the sum of $215 as against appellee and offset this sum to appellee by awarding appellee judgment as against appellant in the sum of $289.30, leaving a balance due appellee from appellant in the sum of $74.30, for which sum judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. From this judgment the appeal is prosecuted to this court.

Only one point is set up by appellant as error. Appellant contends that there is no evidence of a substantial character to support the judgment as to loss of profits to the appellee’s business and that the damages awarded for such loss are speculative and were not proven.

No specific findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court, and none were requested by either of the parties. This state of the record does not invoke a review of the evidence. Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 35 N.M. 52, 290 P. 1022, and cases therein cited. We will not review the evidence to see whether it supports the general findings in the judgment where there has been no requested findings of fact.

For the reasons given the judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered.

SADLER, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and BRICE, JJ., concur.

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

ZINN, Justice.

Appellant brought suit against appellee for the sum of $227.70, for goods, wares, and merchandise sold by appellant to appel-lee. Appellee answered denying the indebtedness and alleged that appellant owed appellee $20 for hauling sand and $500 damages for failing to furnish an air compressor, failure to grade up certain lots, failure to change certain pumps to a new location, and for diggjng certain tank holes and not changing pumps which appellant agreed to do, and thereby causing appellee damages resulting from loss of business.

The cause was tried to the court, who awarded appellant judgment in the sum of $215 as against appellee and offset this sum to appellee by awarding appellee judgment as against appellant in the sum of $289.30, leaving a balance due appellee from appellant in the sum of $74.30, for which sum judgment was rendered in favor of appellee. From this judgment the appeal is prosecuted to this court.

Only one point is set up by appellant as error. Appellant contends that there is no evidence of a substantial character to support the judgment as to loss of profits to the appellee’s business and that the damages awarded for such loss are speculative and were not proven.

No specific findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court, and none were requested by either of the parties. This state of the record does not invoke a review of the evidence. Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 35 N.M. 52, 290 P. 1022, and cases therein cited. We will not review the evidence to see whether it supports the general findings in the judgment where there has been no requested findings of fact.

For the reasons given the judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered.

SADLER, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and BRICE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P.2d 1089, 40 N.M. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-oil-co-of-california-v-brown-nm-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack