Title: City of Hot Springs v. Hot Springs Fair & Racing Ass'n

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

243 P.2d 619 (1952) 56 N.M. 317 CITY OF HOT SPRINGS v. HOT SPRINGS FAIR & RACING ASS'N, Inc. (N.S.L.) No. 5451. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 22, 1952. Douglass K. FitzHugh, Hot Springs, for appellant. W. C. Whatley, W. B. Darden, LaFel E. Oman, all of Las Cruces, for appellee. COMPTON, Justice. Appellee instituted this action for the cancellation of a lease, the purpose of which was to provide adequate facilities for the conducting of county fairs and parimutuel races within the municipality of Hot Springs, New Mexico. Appellant is an assignee of the original lessees. *620 The lease contains many provisions, the violation of which authorizes a forfeiture at the election of the lessor. The complaint alleges a breach of its covenants in several respects. A copy of the lease was attached to the complaint and, by reference, made a part thereof. Appellant admits the execution of the lease but denies any breach of its terms. The case was tried to the court and following the hearing judgment was entered decreeing cancellation, from which the appeal is taken. The findings material to a decision are: The original lease was not formally offered in evidence and it is contended that any judgment based thereon becomes a nullity. The question is settled by our rules. The lease was fully set out in the complaint, made a part of it, and its genuineness admitted by the pleadings. Rule 9(k) and (1), our Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: Rule 10, our Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: The author, at 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 523, page 1080, says: The cases are in accord that facts admitted by the pleadings need not be proved. Perley v. Goar, 22 Ariz. 146, 195 P. 532; Lifton v. Harshman, 80 Cal. App. 2d 422, 182 P.2d 222; Gallaway v. Smith, 70 Ariz. 364, 220 P.2d 857; Butler v. Stratton, 95 Cal. App. 2d 23, 212 P.2d 43; Marcante v. Hein, 51 Wyo. 389, 67 P.2d 196; Orr v. Bauer, 156 Or. 409, 67 P.2d 770; Donovan v. Security-First National Bank of *622 Los Angeles, 67 Cal. App. 2d 845, 155 P.2d 856; Gaines v. Gaines Bros. Co., 176 Okl. 583, 56 P.2d 863. Section XI of the lease provides: The notice of default, in part, reads: Personal receipt of the notice was acknowledged in the following language: Appellant objected to the introduction of the notice in evidence. It is strongly urged that the notice is a part of the instrument upon which the action is founded and that failure to attach the original, or a copy thereof, to the complaint as an exhibit and the failure to give written notice of default as provided by the lease, nullifies the judgment. Obviously, the purpose of the forfeiture provision was to put the lessee on notice of default and, since the record discloses that it voluntarily accepted notice, we are of the opinion that the mode of service was sufficient. We observe also that notice of default was given September 30, 1949, and that appellant retained possession until October 8, 1950, during which time appellant remained in default. While the giving of notice in such case is a condition precedent, in pleading performance, it is sufficient to aver generally that all such conditions have been performed. Rule 9(c), our Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint so alleges. Clearly, the action was founded upon the lease and not the notice. Consequently, it was unnecessary to attach the notice or copy thereof to the complaint. Lohman v. Reymond, 18 N.M. 225, 137 P. 375; Beebe v. Fouse, 27 N.M. 194, 199 P. 364; Laws v. Pyeatt, 40 N.M. 7, 52 P.2d 127; Nixon-Foster Service Co. v. Morrow, 41 N.M. 67, 64 P.2d 92. Finally, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Forty-six alleged errors are assigned thereby requiring the review of a long and tedious record. However, we limit our consideration to a determination whether the findings are supported by evidence. From the examination made we conclude that there is sufficient evidence of a substantial character to support the findings. *623 Questions relating to the admission of certain evidence have been considered but these are found to be without merit. The judgment will be affirmed and it is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COORS, JJ., concur.