El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-02-24

mot IN the course OF employment
and that a Judgment against can.
not be sustained In the absence OF
levidence showing ratification or The
acceptapce of benefits.
AZ. Every person Ia liable 70 tFo.
lver who personally 0rlby agent. com
mits an act Of conversion, or who par
ticlpates BY instleating aiding, r rs.
siHting another. OF who benefits by
lbs proceeds In whole or III part
II. Value Of the thing converted ~
a material allegation ii case OF troI
vor and conversion hence where q.
legged ana not denied. no proof Of
value is required.
NO. 1870.
Q. M. Arnold and p. A. Warren, an.
lpellees. VS.. N. ". Wells and NJ. NJ.
Wells. appellants. Appeal from dis
ltriet court, ChaVes county.
Iii January. 1914 plaintiffs con-
tracted with W. NJ. Wells, acting for
himself and in behalf Of his code
PENDANT, NJ. Y. Wells, to furnish a
purchaser for certain lands and real
estate owned BY said defendants In
consideration al q certain amount or
money Plaintiffs claim they fully
performed the conditions and terms
Of said contract. Defendants demur-
rcd to the complaint which demurrer
was ovefrnled Defendants elected to
stand on their demurrer and judg-
ment was rendered against them for
THE amount prayed IN the complaint
Judgment Of the lower court re-
vefsed. Opinion by M. g. Mechom.
Tho syllabus says;
q. IA complaint in an action BY a
real estate broker for commissions
under a contract 10 furnish a pur-
chaser, which alleges that the broker
fully performed his contract and
found i purchaser. does not suffic.
'icntly alIege performance.
q Section idl53, Code 1915. In
pleading the performance Of a condi-
fion precedent in a contract it shall
be necessary to state the facts
showing such performance, but II
may be stated generally that the
party performed all the conditions
on his part, does not apply where
4 contract Is indefinite or In the alter
native, but In such cases the quo
mado must be stated.
No. fs41.
Adelina r. Jarmillo. appellee, VS.. J..
i. I.ovclace, appellant Appeal from
'district court. Guadalupe county.
The plaintiff below sued for the.
conversion of postoffice fixtures. She
was succeeded on April 30, 1914 by
the defendant as postmaster at Fort
Sumner, N. NJ. She owned the FUR
niture and fixtures Of the office, and
when the office was transferred by
the postoffice Inspector she left the
fixtures in possession of the defend
ant but told him that she did not
want him to use them and demanded
that If he did lise them le should pay
her for them the next day. The de-
endant used the fixtures ana offered
her rent which she refused. Plain
tiff institutd this action IN May 5.
}9Is for the value or the fixtures and
received judgment. from which YER
dict defendant appealed. Judgment
OF the lower court reversed. Opinion
by M. C. Mechem, district Judge. The
syllabus says:
II, Section $50 Of the Postal Regu-
lations Of the United States, Edition
1918, which provides that retiring
postmasters shall not remove their
equipment until their successors
shall have a reasonable time to pur-
chase and install equipment, and that
the latter shall pay a reasonable
rental for the equipment, of their pre-
.decessors, to be agreed upon between
The parties. Held to be a reasonable
regulation and a complete defense to
an action for conversion by a retiring
postmaster against his successor
where the latter only retained pos
session of the formers equipment for
a reasonable length Of time"
state vs.. Kelly
No. 1877. State vs.. Kelly. Opinion
by Mechem, d. j., Roberts, c., j., and
Parker, J., concurring.
Kelly was surety on a bond for the
appearance Of a defendant to answer
a criminal charge, returned by the
grand jury Of Quay county. The de-
PENDANT failed to appear at the date
set for the trial and his bond was
forfeited. Within three days his
sureties produced the defendant and
asked to have the forfeiture of the
bond set aside, offering to pay an the
costs incurred by the state by reason
Of the non-appearance Of the defend
ant. This the court refused to do and
entered Judgment against the sure
ties for the full amount Of the bond.
The supreme court held that trial
court should have vacated the order
FORGETTING the bond, upon payment by
the sureties Of all costs ~occasioned BY
reason Of the non-appearanee OF the
defendant, and set aside the order Of
the trial court awarding Judgment
the sureties.i