Title: Cochran v. Gordon

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

367 P.2d 526 (1961) 69 N.M. 346 J. Albert COCHRAN and Evelyn A. Cochran, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Andrew J. GORDON and Deweylee S. Gordon, Defendants-Appellants. No. 6928. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 14, 1961. Mayo T. Boucher, Belen, for appellants. John E. Hall, Albuquerque, for appellees. COMPTON, Chief Justice. This is an action for the recovery of monies paid on a contract involving the purchase of certain real estate, for an accounting, and for the foreclosure of an equitable lien upon the premises. The controversy stems from a written contract between the parties, which reads: Appellants denied that they were indebted to appellees in any amount and, by counterclaim, sought damages in the amount of $30,000.00 due to appellees' abandonment of the contract. It developed after the proceedings were instituted that appellants had sold the premises to R.S. Miller and W.R. Watson under a purchase contract. The ambiguity in the contract became immediately apparent to the trial court and by reason thereof resort was had to extrinsic evidence in arriving at the intention of the parties. The court made the following findings: The court concluded that the notice of August 6, 1951, was a notice to rescind and did not constitute an abandonment of the contract, and that appellees were entitled to a refund of the purchase money previously invested by them in the partnership. Judgment was entered in favor of appellees for the amount claimed with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from date of entry of judgment and provided for a lien upon the unpaid balance then due the appellants under the contract. From this judgment, appellants bring the appeal for review of alleged errors. Appellants challenge findings 6(d), 7, and 14 only, contending they are not supported by substantial evidence. Supporting their contention, they rely principally upon the evidence most favorable to them. This is not the test; upon appeal this court is committed to the rule that where there is a conflict in the evidence, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom, must be considered in a light most favorable to the successful party, disregarding all evidence to the contrary. New Mexico Bus Sales v. Michael, 68 N.M. 223, 360 P.2d 639; State ex rel State Highway Commission v. Tanny, 68 N.M. 117, 359 P.2d 350. We agree with the trial court that the contract is ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required in construing and giving it effect. Clearly, it left unanswered the time of payment of unpaid balance; effect of withdrawal; when withdrawal could be made; when reimbursement was to be made, whether by a lump sum or over a period of years; the rate of interest; the meaning of the term "capital stock"; and whether the appellees were entitled to reimbursement for money paid on the purchase of the land as well as money invested as capital stock. The Gordons testified that reimbursement was limited only to investment in capital stock, consisting of additional lands, to be purchased by the partnership, and that withdrawal could not be made within three years from the date of the contract. On the other hand, J.A. Cochran testified: Aside from the testimony of the appellee Cochran, there is preponderating evidence that the Gordons recognized that they were indebted to the Cochrans for the amount awarded them by the court. The record discloses that subsequent to the notice of withdrawal, various propositions were made by the Gordons to induce the Cochrans to repurchase a portion of the land in settlement of the indebtedness. It was the province of the trial court to resolve the conflict. We deem the evidence substantial; consequently the findings are conclusive on appeal. Peugh v. Clegg, 68 N.M. 355, 362 P.2d 510; Hyde v. Anderson, 68 N.M. 50, 358 P.2d 619. Under point 2, appellants argue that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, due to appellees' abandonment of the contract; that such abandonment worked a forfeiture of all amounts paid. In other words they contend that the contract became null and void due to Cochran's having withdrawn therefrom prior to the expiration of the three-year period. This point has no merit; what we have just said disposes of this argument. Under point 3, it is argued that appellants are entitled to an offset in amount of $5,325.00, asserted to be one-half of the partnership debts owing at the time of Cochran's withdrawal. Appellants submitted a finding to this effect and its refusal is the basis for this point. This point is without merit. While it is true the court found that there were partnership losses existing when Cochran withdrew and that he was liable for one-half interest thereof, the court did not find that these losses amounted to $5,325.00. This can only be determined from an accounting. Finally, it is asserted that the court erred in the granting of an equitable lien upon the net proceeds from the sale of the property to Miller and Watson. We fail to see any error in the ruling of the court. Equity was sought and the granting of the lien was proper under the circumstances in order to afford full relief. At 92 C.J.S., Vendor & Purchaser, § 556, we find the following statement: We now dispose of the question brought up under Rule 17(2), our Rules, whether the court committed error against the appellees. They contend that the court erred in refusing to make findings requested by them with respect to an accounting of the partnership affairs, and ask us to review this alleged error. As we view the decision of the court, he did find appellees were entitled to an accounting and that none had been made, and concluded appellees should have one. This they should have had. Section 66-1-22, 1953 Comp. However, the *531 requirement for an accounting was not carried into the judgment. The cause will be remanded to the trial court to modify the decree to require an accounting. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered. CHAVEZ, and MOISE, JJ., concur. CARMODY and NOBLE, JJ., not participating.