Title: Save-Rite Drug Stores v. Stamm
Citation: 271 P.2d 396, 58 N.M. 357
Docket Number: 5731
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: June 7, 1954

271 P.2d 396 (1954) 58 N.M. 357 SAVE-RITE DRUG STORES, Inc. v. STAMM et al. No. 5731. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 7, 1954. Irwin S. Moise and Lewis R. Sutin, Albuquerque, for appellant. Simms &amp; Modrall, Vance Mauney, Albuquerque, for appellees. McGHEE, Chief Justice. The appellant is lessee of a building owned by appellees, where appellant operates a department drug store. The lease contains the following provisions, among others: The appellant proposed to sublease to Everitt Jewelry Company a portion of the store room 14 3/4 feet by 58 feet, with a door opening to the street for the operation of a jewelry store, as well as a door into the principal store room, but the appellees refused to consent to such sublease unless the percentage of sales going to them *397 was increased, on the ground such a jewelry department was beyond that contemplated by the lease. In other words, the appellees claimed such an operation would be larger than the jewelry department of a department drug store, and that such would violate the terms of the lease; the appellant contends the contrary. To settle the controversy, the appellant brought suit for a declaratory judgment establishing their right to so sublease a part of the store room. The trial court made the following findings of fact, as amended, and conclusions of law: Judgment was entered in favor of the appellees (lessors) and this appeal followed. Following the submission of the cause here, we directed the trial court to make additional findings of fact in response to the following inquiry: The following additional findings of fact were made and certified to us: The appellant in its brief-in-chief makes strong attacks on the findings of fact which came to us regularly in the transcript, and also complains of the failure of the trial court to grant numerous findings of fact requested by it, which, it says, are uncontroverted in the record. This latter claim is true, but we find the trial court made the findings of fact necessary *399 to a determination of the case, and the fact that it failed to make requested findings which would not affect the outcome is not reversible error. Wiggs v. City of Albuquerque, 1953, 57 N.M. 770, 263 P.2d 963. The appellant claims the supplemental findings certified to us after the submission of the case go beyond the inquiry made and that some are not germane to the issues raised and therefore should not be considered. This may be true of one or two, but they do not affect the result. It is clear from the findings that the type of merchandise sold by Everitt Jewelry Company differs materially from the stock of jewelry usually kept for sale in a department drug store, as detailed in the supplemental findings, and the proposed sublease would be violative of the terms of subparagraph 2 of Article III of the lease quoted above, so the principal question is whether such findings are sustained by substantial evidence. An examination of the record in this case satisfies us the findings are so sustained. Indeed, the record is convincing that if the appellant prevails there will be a large, first-class jewelry store operating in the building, rather than a jewelry department such as is usually found in a department drug store. The appellant has cited cases from many jurisdictions showing tenants are favorites in the law, and that a business lease is construed strongly against the owner, to the end wide use may be made of the building by one paying the rent therefor, but we feel that under the facts of this case, it would do violence to the terms of the lease to reverse the judgment heretofore rendered. The appellant also urges upon us the fact department drug stores are constantly adding new lines of merchandise and enlarging their stocks, citing authorities in support of the claim. We know this contention is true, and the writer would not be unduly surprised to see a tractor offered for sale in one of these stores, but, even so, the lease does not permit the operation of the jewelry store Everitt Jewelry Company would place in the leased building. The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. COMPTON and LUJAN, JJ., concur. SEYMOUR, J., not participating. SADLER, J., absent from the state, did not participate.