Case Title: Chavez v. Sedillo

Citation: 284 P.2d 1026, 59 N.M. 357

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1955-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
284 P.2d 1026 (1955) 59 N.M. 357 Arthur CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan R. SEDILLO, also known as Dan Sedillo, being one and the same person, and Emelia Sedillo, wife of said Dan Sedillo; Realty Mortgage and Investment Company, a corporation; The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 5917. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 3, 1955. On Motion for Rehearing June 9, 1955. Rehearing Denied June 19, 1955. Manuel A. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellant. *1027 Harry L. Bigbee, Donnan Stephenson, Santa Fe, for appellees. McGHEE, Justice. The lower court gave judgment for the defendants on the pleadings in this action to foreclose a mechanic's lien upon the ground a fatal variance existed between the allegations of the plaintiff's pleadings and the claim of lien upon which he relied. The plaintiff appeals. The order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings did not specify the nature of the fatal variance, but it appears from the briefs of counsel here that argument was made to the lower court respecting variance between the statement in the claim of lien as to the terms, time given and conditions of the contract under which the labor and materials were supplied, required to be set forth in the claim of lien under § 61-2-6, 1953 Comp., and those matters as alleged in the complaint and answer to counter-claim of defendants Section 61-2-6, 1953 Comp., provides: To determine whether a fatal variance does exist it is necessary to examine in some detail the claim of lien and the pleadings of the plaintiff. Omitting portions of the lien claim regarding the designation of persons and description of the land, it reads as follows: *1028 In resume, this claim asserts: (1) Materials and labor in the construction of a residence for the defendants Sedillo were furnished pursuant to agreement. (2) The total cost of materials and labor so furnished was $18,102.60 and the balance still owing is $1,502.60. (3) The work was performed under a contract providing claimant was to be paid for labor and materials at completion of his work. (4) On March 2, 1951 (a date after completion of the work), claimant and defendants Sedillo agreed the amount owing claimant for labor and materials furnished was $1,502.60. The allegations of the complaint setting forth the agreement under which the work was done and the arrangement for payment read as follows: The written contract set forth as Exhibit "A" is brief and is quoted below: Attached to the complaint as Exhibit "B" was a financial statement of bills and payrolls, which reflected credits for sums paid by the defendants Sedillo. Among other handwritten items appearing on this statement is the following: "Bal. 1502.60." In response to the answer and counter-claim of the defendants which admitted the execution of the contract, Exhibit "A" set out above, admitted payment of the sum of $16,600 and refusal to pay the sum of $1,502.60, and set forth various affirmative and legal defenses, in addition, charging the construction work was improperly done and that defective materials were used in violation of the contract to the damage to defendants of the sum of $7,500, the plaintiff admitted that the sum sued for in the complaint included charges made by him for wages claimed to be due for carpenter work. He denied that his total agreed compensation was to be ten percent of the cost up to $15,000. He further alleged: *1030 Without ignoring any of the allegations made in the foregoing pleadings upon which counsel for each side rely to support their contentions here, a summation of the claimant's position as therein disclosed may fairly be stated to be: (1) He alleges a contract which he makes his Exhibit "A", under which he agreed to build a house and garage as described by the defendants Sedillo on the basis of ten percent cost plus, it being agreed if the cost exceeded $15,000 he would continue the construction at actual cost. (2) He asserts the actual agreement under which the work was done was as interpreted by the parties, or controlled by verbal modifications as the work progressed. (3) He alleges the parties arrived at an agreed account stated for the balance owing after the conclusion of the work. Assuming, without deciding, the sufficiency of the claim of lien, and further assuming that the plaintiff, under some state of facts, might have pleaded an agreement not at variance with his claim of lien, he has not done so. Except for the consistent assertion there was an account stated, and the amount thereof, we can see no substantial similarity between the terms, time given and conditions of the contract as set out in the claim of lien and as asserted in the pleadings. Who, looking at the claim of lien, could foresee the substance of the allegations of the complaint and answer to the counterclaim? We said in Weggs v. Kreugel, 1922, 28 N.M. 24, 205 P. 730, 731: In that case it was held that a slight variance between the statement of the lien as to the time of payments and the proof made at the trial on that matter was so unimportant it did not vitiate the lien. It is argued to us that the variances noted are likewise unsubstantial. We do not so view them, but are instead of the opinion there is little qualitative difference between them and the variance denounced in Campbell v. Hollywood Race Ass'n, 1950, 54 N.M. 260, 221 P.2d 558, summarized in syllabus five thereof: As recently as in the case of Tabet v. Davenport, 1953, 57 N.M. 540, 260 P.2d 722, we declared we would follow the California decisions in the construction of our lien statute. The following California cases relied upon by the defendants support the determination here made, though the variances there involved were not factually identical and arose between the claim of lien and the proof: California Portland Cement Co. v. Wentworth Hotel Co., 16 Cal. App. 692, 118 P. 103, rehearing denied, 1911, 16 Cal. App. 692, at pages 715, 716, 118 P. 113; Nofziger Bros. Lumber Co. v. Shafer, 1905, 2 Cal. App. 219, 83 P. 284; Wilson v. Nugent, 1899, 125 Cal. 280, 57 P. 1008. See also, Porteous Decorative Co. v. Fee, 1907, 29 Nev. 375, 91 P. 135. "We are committed to the doctrine that the mechanics' lien law, though in derogation of the common law, is remedial in its nature, and is to have a liberal construction." Dysart v. Youngblood, 1940, 44 N.M. 351, at page 354, 102 P.2d 664, 666, and authorities therein cited. However, the reason which underlies the cases cited in the foregoing paragraph is that the claim of lien must not only contain a statement of the terms, time given and conditions of the contract, but such statement must be true. To put the parties to proof in this case would result in inexcusable trouble and expense, for under pleadings upon which the plaintiff has elected to stand, he would have to prove matters at variance with the claim of lien he is seeking to foreclose. The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and LUJAN and SADLER, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., not participating. For the first time, on this motion for rehearing, it is argued to the Court that judgment dismissing plaintiff's (appellant's) complaint is erroneous in that the complaint states a cause of action on account stated and that plaintiff is entitled thereunder to seek personal judgment against the defendants Sedillo, separate and apart from his claim to foreclose a mechanic's lien. We are of the opinion allegation 6 of the complaint, already quoted in our earlier opinion, does sufficiently set forth a claim upon account stated and that plaintiff should be allowed to go to trial thereon. The defendants call our attention to the following language from State ex rel Denton v. Vinyard, 1951, 55 N.M. 205, 209, 230 P.2d 238, 240: It is true that the instant complaint was obviously intended to state a cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic's lien; it was so presented to and considered by this Court. However, we notice in the record that on March 22, 1954, the plaintiff moved the lower court for further hearing upon the motion for judgment on the pleadings upon various grounds, including the following: The matter having thus been raised in the lower court, we are of the opinion plaintiff has brought himself within the rule that a complaint will not be dismissed on motion therefor unless it appears that under no state of facts provable under the claim could plaintiff recover or be entitled to relief and that lack of an appropriate prayer is immaterial in ruling on such motion. See: Eyring v. Board of Regents, Etc., 1955, 59 N.M. 3, 277 P.2d 550; Crawford v. Taylor, 1954, 58 N.M. 340, 270 P.2d 978; Ritter v. Albuquerque Gas & Electric Co., 1943, 47 N.M. 329, 142 P.2d 919, 153 A.L.R. 273. All other matters raised in plaintiff's motion for rehearing relating to this court's disposition of appeal as to claim for enforcement of the mechanic's lien are found to be without merit. Accordingly, we reaffirm our holding the trial court was correct in denying foreclosure of the claimed lien, but the case is reversed and remanded with direction to the lower court to reinstate plaintiff's complaint and permit trial of the issues only as to the personal claim against the defendants Sedillo on account stated. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and LUJAN and SADLER, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., not participating.