Case Title: Lovato v. Hicks

Citation: 409 P.2d 130, 75 N.M. 611

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1965-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
409 P.2d 130 (1965) 75 N.M. 611 Donato LOVATO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie HICKS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 7775. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 20, 1965. Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for appellant. McAtee, Toulouse, Marchiondo, Ruud & Gallagher, James E. Casados, Albuquerque, for appellee. COMPTON, Justice. The plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint with prejudice under § 21-1-1(41) (e), N.M.S.A. 1953. The pertinent provisions of the rule read: We find no error in the ruling of the court. The court record discloses the following facts. The complaint was filed March 3, 1961; the defendant entered his appearance March 27, 1961; plaintiff's demand for a jury was filed April 24, 1961; defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 41(e) was filed July 16, 1964; the order granting the motion was filed August 17, 1964. Admittedly, there was no written stipulation signed by the parties and filed in the case suspending or *131 postponing final action in the case beyond two years. However, on August 31, 1962, appellant wrote a letter to the trial court requesting an early hearing of the case. The court responded thereto on September 9, 1962, advising the plaintiff that an early hearing could not be afforded him. Plaintiff's letter and a copy of the reply were mailed by the court to the clerk of the court and placed in the file for future references. Appellant asserts that the correspondence between the court and counsel was sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss under Rule 41(e). We disagree; this correspondence was not a part of the court record. A like contention was made in Sarikey v. Sandoval, 75 N.M. 271, 404 P.2d 108, and on authority of that case we conclude that the order of the court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. CARMODY, C.J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur.