Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-09-05
LIST OF SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS

>---s---------~----------~---
Stockmen's Guaranty Loan COM
pany, appellee, VS., Severe Sanchez,
appellant. No. 1888.
This is an appeal from "a judg-
ment against appellant upon di-
rected verdict in the district court.
The action was upon three prom
issory notes, two of which We're
given to cover the purchase price
OF certain shares of stock in the
appellee corporation, and one or
which was for borrowed money.
The appellant filed an answer ana
counter claim and alleged, in sub
stance, that there was fraud in the
procuring of said notes; that ne
was mentally incapacitated at the
time of the execution of said notes;
that there was failure of consid-
Grafton; that the appellee had
failed to exhaust it's remedies
against collateral pledged to secure
the payment of said notes; and that
the appellant had paid $500 upon
his stock subscription for the APP
pellee's stock which he desired to
recover. Issue was Joined and at
the close of the appellants testi-
mony the court, upon motion, d.
,rected a verdict for the appellee
and rendered judgment thereon,
from which this appeal is prose-
cuted.
Judgment of the court below, af-
firmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Sections 93g and $40, Code
1915, interpreted, and held not to
prohibit a corporation from taxing
a promissory note upon subscrlp-
ton contract for its capital stock,
and that such note is valid ana
binding upon the maker,
2. Evidence examined ana held
not to support any allegation Oh
fraudulent representations induc-
ing a stock subscription.
3. The payment of the purchase
price, in pursuance of the terms OF
Subscription contract for corporate
stock and the receipt of benetits
from the corporation, after the dls-
coyery of alleged fraudulent repre-
sensations inducing the supscrlp-
ton contract establishes an attirmr
ance of the contract and destroys the
right of RECESSION.
4 A person who executed a sub
scription contract for stock III a
corporation when he is under tne
influence of liquor, but who supse-
auently, when he is sober, does acts
which clearly recognize the con"
tract as valid, and shows an lnteh-
ton to be bound by it, affirms me
contract and thereby destroys the
right to rescind on account Oh
drunkenness. nj,
Opinion by Parker, c. j.; ROD
erts, ]. concudding;. Raynoids' nav .
ing heard the case below, dld not
participate. .,.
II. c. Bell, appellee, VS.. Rose
Kyle and w. J. Kyle, appellants
No. 2,345. ...H. .,oo
This is an action by the appellee
against the appellants. II is allegeo
in the complaint that the Appellee
entered into negotiations WIN
the appellants for the purchase OF
certain tract Of land; that the
appellant, w. j. Kyle, husband OIL
the appellant, Rose Kyle, acting as
agent for said Rose Kyle, repre-
scented and stated to the appeilee
that certain spring of water, 81,
uated at and near a certain rahCh
house, was situated upon the PROV
erty of the appellant, Rose Kyle
and that such property was desls :
mated. The appellee rendered a
deed of cancellation and otlersu
to reconvey to the appellants te
prayed for the recovery OF ule
purchase price and for the cahcei-
lation Of the conveyance ana ior
general relief. The appellants an !
swered admitting the conveyance
and payment of the purchase price,
they denied in toto the false ana
fraudulent representations, ana
averred that the appellees wen
knew at the time of said purcnase
that the said spring was not upon
the lands which he purchased
Upon issue Joined, the case pelhs
tried to a jury, Judgment was CIV
en- for the appellee. The court can !
celled the deed and the contrdot
between the parties was ordereu -
be rescinded. The court also saw
jurgment for the purchase mohey.
The court further cancelled ana Or
dered the assignment of the LEASE
to be surrendered and delivered 10
the appellants. From THIS Juos
ment this appeal is prosecuted
Judgment of the court below d.
firmed,
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Ordinarily the findings OF
fact of the trial court Will not oe
disturbed when they are supporlou
by any substantial evidence :.
Q. The evidence of a witness 70
an admission of notice OF lac'
which, if received prior to me q
purchase of land would prevent lile
party from resembling the transao,
ton on the ground of frauduien'
representations, and which, II re-
ceived after the purchase ana pay
ment of the purchase price Wou,u
not affect his right, was properis
disregarded by the court as NINA
teriai, where the witness faxed 10
be able to show that the notice was
received prior to the purchase. A.,
8. A question not raised IN 'Ie
court below, will, ordinarily not De
considered here.
A. Where a vendor takes ven,
dee to a spring and falsely ana
fraudulently represents to the ven
dee that the spring is upon, the