Case Title: Rone v. Calvary Baptist Church, Inc.

Citation: 374 P.2d 847, 70 N.M. 465

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1962-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
374 P.2d 847 (1962) 70 N.M. 465 Bill RONE, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., a corporation, Employer, and the Western Casualty and Surety Company, a corporation, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. No. 7117. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 14, 1962. Supplemental Opinion September 19, 1962. Atwood & Malone, Paul Cooter, Roswell, for appellants and cross-appellees. Bean & Snead, Roswell, for appellee and cross-appellant. NOBLE, Justice. This appeal is from a judgment awarding claimant, Rone, workmen's compensation benefits amounting to $4.75 per week for partial permanent disability. The court found the following facts: We shall refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court. Defendants rely on a single point for reversal which they state thus: As we understand defendants' argument, it is that claimant's post-injury earnings equalled or exceeded his pre-injury earnings and that he is not entitled to any compensation. Defendants refer to certain testimony as to claimant's earnings at various times, both before and after the injury; but neither by the point relied on for reversal nor in their brief do defendants directly attack any of the findings of the trial court as not supported by substantial evidence. It is suggested that the evidence would have supported a finding of a smaller average weekly wage prior to the accident, but defendants do not point to any certain pre-injury average weekly wage less than that found by the court which is claimed to have been established by undisputed evidence. The same may be said of the argument regarding the post-injury earnings. An examination of the record discloses that defendants requested no finding as to claimant's post-injury earnings and only that his earnings at the time of the injury exceeded $60.00 per week. No objection was made to any finding by the trial court, and under the long-established rule in this jurisdiction, findings of the court, not attacked here, are the facts upon which the case must rest on appeal and are binding on this court. Emmco Ins. Co. v. Walker, 57 N.M. 525, 260 P.2d 712; In re Cox' Estate, 57 N.M. 543, 260 P.2d 909. This rule applies to findings made by the court in a workmen's compensation case, La Rue v. Johnson, 47 N.M. 260, 141 P.2d 321; and the defendant cannot complain on appeal of the findings made by the court. Rule 52(b) (6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; Teaver v. Miller, 53 N.M. 345, 208 P.2d 156. Claimant has cross-appealed on the sole ground that the trial court improperly computed the benefits to which claimant is entitled under the workmen's compensation statute, but does not argue the question except to refer us to a prior argument in his answer brief. If we correctly understand claimant's position regarding his cross-appeal, it would require an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings as to average weekly wage earned by claimant both before and after the accident. The findings are not directly attacked and, therefore, will not be reviewed on appeal. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. COMPTON, C.J., and CARMODY, J., concur. CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., not participating. PER CURIAM. Attention has been called to our failure to determine whether attorneys fees should be allowed claimant's attorney on appeal. No motion for allowance of attorneys fees was filed. The request appears at the conclusion of claimant's brief and was overlooked by us. In view of the fact that the judgment of the trial court awarding claimant compensation was affirmed, attorneys fees are awarded claimant for the benefit of his attorney on appeal in the sum of $750.00. IT IS SO ORDERED. CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., not participating.