Title: Sproles v. McDonald
Citation: 392 P.2d 584, 74 N.M. 243
Docket Number: 7409
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 1964

392 P.2d 584 (1964) 74 N.M. 243 Elizabeth J. SPROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George McDONALD and Laura McDONALD, his wife, Defendants-Appellees. No. 7409. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 25, 1964. C.C. Chase, Jr., Alamogordo, for appellant. H. Elfred Jones, Carrizozo, E. Forrest Sanders, Wm. W. Bivins, Las Cruces, for appellees. CHAVEZ, Justice. This is the second time that this case comes before us. In our prior opinion found in 70 N.M. 168, 372 P.2d 122, wherein the facts are stated, we ordered the case reversed and remanded to the district court: A mandate was issued to the district court of Lincoln County, repeating the order expressed in the opinion and, on July 23, 1962, the district court entered an order reinstating the cause upon the docket, and further ordering that: On the same day, counsel for appellant submitted requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. On August 6, 1962, appellees filed a motion in which they made an offer that they felt was fair and equitable and would constitute a balancing of the equities; the offer being a relinquishment of their claim to that portion of land where appellant's improvements were located and being more particularly described as follows: Appellees filed their requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which incorporated their offer, on August 6, 1962. A hearing was held on August 17, 1962, in which appellees' counsel were present, but appellant's counsel was not, although the judgment recites that he had notice and he does not attack the form of the judgment. As a result of that hearing, the district court, having considered the equities and having made findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered the following "Judgment on the Mandate": It is from this judgment that appellant prosecutes this appeal, contending that: The basis of appellant's contention is that the district court should have taken testimony as to the value of the land and, having failed to do so, the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence and must necessarily fail. Appellant's contention is without merit. We have consistently held that, upon remand, the district court has only such jurisdiction as the opinion and mandate of this court will confer. Chronister v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 72 N.M. 159, 381 P.2d 673; *586 State ex rel. Del Curto v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist., 51 N.M. 297, 183 P.2d 607. The district court complied with the opinion and mandate of this court, hence we find no error. The judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered. NOBLE and MOISE, JJ., concur.