El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-05-04
SYLLABUS IN FULL OF SUPREME
COURT OPINIONS GIVEN MONDAY
state V. Graves

state vs., graves
No. 1746. State Of New Mexico, ap.
pellee, VS.. Roscoe Il. Graves, appel
liant, Chaves county. On motion for
rehearing judgment Of court below re-
versed.
syllabus
1. Where there Is no substantial
~lbyidence to support the verdict Of a
Jury, the Judgment thereon will be set
aside on appeal. Opinion by Chief
Justice ROBBERS, Justice Hanna con-
curing. Justice Parker dissents.
Singer vs.. swartz
No. 1903. Lena Singer etc, ct al, APP
pellee, VS.. w. II. Swartz. District
court OF Curry county. Affirmed.
This Is an action brought in the dis
trict court OF Curry county by Lena
Singer, a minor, by her father as next
friend, against w. f. Swartz, to re-
cover compensation for injuries al
legged to have been received by her
while operating a power driven steam
mangle in the laundry Of appellant.
Judgment of the court below affirmed.
Syllabus.
/. The master owes the duty to the
servant to exercise reasonable care
and diligence to furnish him a safe
place to work as well as safe instru-
%mentalities with which to do the
work.
2. Under circumstances Of this
case. held, that it was the duty of the
master to adjust the safety roller On
the laundry mangle, so as to minimize
the danger of injury to the operators
thereof.
8. The servant assumes all the
ordinary risks incident to employ
ment, but not the extraordinary risks,
unless he knew and appreciated the
same.
A.. Where the evidence Is OF such a
character that the proper inference
to be drawn from it, as to the assump-
ton of risk by the servant, is a ques
tion with respect to which different
opinions may not u~nreasonably be
formed, whether the servant assumed
the risk or not is a question for the
jury.
s. Where the servant is a person
of immature years, the cases in which
the court may instruct the jury as a
matter Of law that the servant as
sumed the risk, is much more linl-
tied than in cases where the servant
is a person Of mature years.
Opinion by Justice Parker; Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Hanna
~concurring.
No. 1907. Hiram M. Dow, appellee,
VS.. w. J.. Irwin, appellant. Chaves
county. Adhering to former opinion
of this court, reversing and remand.
ing.
Syllabus
In civil cases it is a we'll recognized
rule that questions not advanced on
the original hearing will not be con-
sidered on the petition for a rehear-
ing. opinion by Chief Justice Rob
,erts: Justices Hanna and Parker con-
curing.
Ellis VS.. Stone
No. 1925. John Ellis, ct al etc, ap-
p~ellants, VS.. Lula Stone, appellee,
Roosevelt county. This is an action
brought by Ellis ct al OF a promis-
sorry note, as administrators in the ma
ture of a contract. Affirmed.
4yAfIhAS
/. Where a writing in the nature
Of a contract is signed by a person,
and contains apt words to bind him
personally, the fact that to such sig
nature is added such words as "trus-
tee," agent postmaster" and the
like, does not change the character Of
the person so signing but are merely
descriptive Of him.
2. The rule of description personae
is not applicable where the instru-
ment, on its face, shows that the de-
~scriptiye words were not used to de-
scribe the person but the character
ize the capacity in which he made the
contract.
3. Where a simple contract is am
biguous as to the identity Of the real
parties thereto, the ambiguity will
first be attempted to be solved from
what appears upon the instrument it.
self, taking into consideration not
only the words and figures in the
body thereof and the signatures and
additions thereto, but any printed or
written headings, memoranda in the
margin, or other indicia which will
serve to throw light OF the intention
Of the parties.
A. Where upon the face. of a
contract doubt is rendered as
to who is bound thereby, parol evil
dence may be employed to determine |
contract it is.
8. An agent, acting within the
scope of the authority conferred up
on him by the principal, is not to be
held personally liable on the contract
because the contract between
the principal and the third party is in
on account of lack Of power in
The principal to make such a contract
where the extent of power possessed !
by the principal is a matter of public {
:
6. The rule that the construction
upon a contract by the par
lies thereto by their acts will be gen
orally adopted by the court, is not ap-
to this case, because no har-
nonious construction thereof was |
by the parties.
z. Where the trial court determin- Z
ID the issue of the case upon the /
Dleadings asd proof, it is no cause for
complaint that the court followed the
'uling Of another judge on a demur-
'er filed therein. IA