Title: Emmco Ins. Co. v. Walker

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

260 P.2d 712 (1953) 57 N.M. 525 EMMCO INS. CO. v. WALKER. No. 5606. Supreme Court of New Mexico. August 26, 1953. *713 Leslie D. Ringer, Santa Fe, for appellant. Howard F. Houk, Santa Fe, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. This is an appeal from an order dismissing the above entitled action for failure on the part of plaintiff to prosecute said action with reasonable diligence. On October 10, 1951, (plaintiff) appellant commenced an action in the district court of Santa Fe County, against the (defendant) appellee to recover a certain Mercury automobile and for damages for wrongful detention thereof. On November 13, 1951, by its answer the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint. On December 3, 1951, the trial judge advised counsel of record for appellant that this case was to be set for trial and to prepare for same. On February 19, 1952, the trial court set the case for trial to be held on February 27, 1952, but a continuance was granted plaintiff's counsel because he had not, up to that time taken the depositions desired to be used at the trial. On March 3, 1952, the opening day of the regular term of court, the case was called upon the docket and the court announced the case would be set for trial. On May 24, 1952, the court mailed a notice to appellant's counsel notifying him that the case had been set for trial as of June 10, 1952. On June 6, 1952, appellant's counsel advised the court verbally, in chambers, that he would not be ready for trial on the day set, because of his failure to take the depositions of certain witnesses whose testimony he desired to use. Appellant's counsel was, at that time, advised by the court to file a motion for a continuance and it would rule on same on the date set for trial. The motion was filed. The court overruled the motion, then counsel moved to dismiss his cause of action without prejudice, which motion was likewise denied. Appellee announced she was ready for trial, and appellant having failed to introduce any evidence in support of its complaint, the court thereupon dismissed its complaint with prejudice upon motion of the appellee. The court found: Based upon the above findings the Court concluded as a matter of Law: Appellant seriously contends that the court erred in dismissing his cause of action with prejudice. The duty rests upon the plaintiff at every stage of the proceeding to use diligence and to expedite his case to a final determination, and unless it is made to appear that there has been a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing an action for lack of prosecution its decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital, 17 Cal. App. 2d 103, 106, 61 P.2d 514; Steinbauer v. Bondesen, 125 Cal. App. 419, 14 P.2d 106; Vogel v. Marsh, 122 Cal. App. 748, 10 P.2d 791; Congdon v. Aumiller, 79 Wash. 616, 621, 140 P. 912. From the facts found by the court, which were peculiarly within its personal knowledge, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion; they show that appellants' counsel neglected and failed to prosecute his cause of action with diligence whatsoever notwithstanding repeated warnings and admonitions of the court to get ready for trial. Counsel was entitled of right to take depositions of any witness he desired to after commencement of his action. Section 19-101(26) (a) of Cumulative Pocket Part, 1951, provides: Counsel for appellant knew at the time he commenced his action that some of his witnesses were in Oklahoma and Texas and would not return to Santa Fe, New Mexico. He had eight months in which to take the depositions desired and otherwise prepare for trial, and his neglect and failure to do so was responsible for the dismissal of his case. Appellant argues "that the clear intent of Rule 41(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is that plaintiff, upon seeking to dismiss after answer must obtain an order of court imposing such terms as the court shall deem proper, but that there is no intimation that his right to dismiss under such circumstances is otherwise abridged. And, as indicated by the last sentence of the rule, only in exceptional circumstances is the dismissal to be with prejudice." He cites the case of Bolten v. General Motors Corporation, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 379, 21 A.L.R.2d 623, as upholding the absolute right of a plaintiff to dismiss under the above rule upon terms and conditions as the court may deem proper. Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows: In Ockert v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 3 Cir., 190 F.2d 303, 304, the court said: It is pointed out in the above case that the granting or denial of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which is identical with Rule 41 of our Rules of Civil Procedure, is a matter of judicial discretion which has been accepted by the great majority of the District Courts and the Courts of Appeals in this country. This view is likewise supported by the Supreme Court of the United States. See, Cone v. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 330 U.S. 212, 67 S. Ct. 752, 91 L. Ed. 849; and in the case of Moore v. C.R. Anthony Co., 10 Cir., 198 F.2d 607, 608, the court said: Again in Walker v. Spencer, 10 Cir., 123 F.2d 347, 350, the court speaking through Judge Bratton, said: See, also, Hicks v. Bekins Moving and Storage Co., 9 Cir., 115 F.2d 406. In view of the foregoing authorities it can be readily ascertained that the right of a plaintiff to dismiss his cause of action without prejudice under Rule 41(a) is entirely within the discretion of the court, and unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, the judgment of the trial court in denying a plaintiff the right to dismiss without prejudice, will not be disturbed on appeal. It has generally been held that courts have the inherent power to dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute the same, independently of any existing statute. In City of Roswell v. Holmes, 44 N.M. 1, 96 P.2d 701, we said: The appellant is in no position to complain. He had been warned and admonished on several occasions by the court to take whatever depositions he desired and to get ready for trial. As early as February 27, 1952, he was granted a continuance for the express purpose of taking depositions, and was then again advised by the Court to get ready for trial. He was given every opportunity necessary to obtain the depositions he desired and to get ready for trial. Under these circumstances it cannot be said the court abused its discretion. Appellant under Point 2, complains of the failure of the court to make certain findings of fact and conclusions of law requested by it. It is sufficient to say that the court could not make the findings nor the conclusions based upon such findings because they would be inconsistent with the findings and conclusions which the court did make at the trial. Vance v. Forty-Eight Star Mill, 54 N.M. 144, 215 P.2d 1016; Bezemek v. Balduini, 28 N.M. 124, 207 P. 330; Lockhart v. Washington Gold & Silver Mining Co., 16 N.M. 223, 117 P. 833. In regard to appellants' objection to finding of fact No. 7, made by the court, it appears from an examination of the record that he did not object to this or any other finding made by the court, and under the well established rule findings of the court not objected to are the facts upon which the case must rest in this court. In re White's Estate, 41 N.M. 631, 73 P.2d 316; Wells v. Gulf Refining Co., 42 N.M. 378, 79 P.2d 921; Krametbauer v. McDonald, 44 N.M. 473, 104 P.2d 900. The other assignment of error argued under this point is without merit and will not be discussed. The judgment is affirmed, and It Is So Ordered. McGHEE, COMPTON and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur. SADLER, C.J., absent from state and not participating.