Title: In Re Stern's Will
Citation: 301 P.2d 1094, 61 N.M. 446
Docket Number: 6093
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: October 1, 1956

301 P.2d 1094 (1956) 61 N.M. 446 Matter of the Last WILL and Testament of Nathan B. STERN, Sometimes Known as N.B. Stern, Deceased. Adolfo MONTOYA, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anita FRIEDMAN, Morey Goodman and Carl H. Gilbert, Trustees of the Estate of Nathan B. Stern, Respondents-Appellees. No. 6093. Supreme Court of New Mexico. October 1, 1956. *1095 Daniel Sosa, Jr., Las Cruces, for appellant. Gilbert, White &amp; Gilbert, Santa Fe, for appellees. COMPTON, Chief Justice. Appellant appeals from an order dismissing his claim against the estate of the decedent, Stern. The claim, omitting the prayer, is as follows: At a hearing on the merits, the claim was denied. The court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the alleged agreement; that the claim in part was barred by the statute of limitations; and that appellant previously had been fully compensated by the decedent for his services rendered during the period of limitation. From an order dismissing the claim, appellant brings the cause here for review of alleged error. The single error assigned is the refusal of the court to permit appellant to add the phrase, "and provide for him in his will", at the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the claim. While amendments of pleadings should be permitted with liberality in the furtherance of justice, § 21-1-1(15), 1953 Comp., our Rule (15), the application was addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its action in denying the motion is subject to review only for clear abuse of discretion. Martinez v. Cook, 57 N.M. 263, 258 P.2d 375; Bounds v. Carner, 53 N.M. 234, 205 P.2d 216; Leggett v. Montgomery Ward &amp; Co., 10 Cir., 178 F.2d 436. Appellant makes no showing whatever of such abuse. Appellant had previously filed an original and an amended claim. The requested amendment was made at the commencement of the trial and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion at this stage of the proceeding. The case is thus distinguished from those cases where amendments are made in advance of the trial. Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co., 46 N.M. 330, 128 P.2d 1044; Puritan Mfg. Co. v. Toti &amp; Gradi, 14 N.M. 425, 94 P. 1022. Moreover, we fail to see the materiality of the proposed amendment. It would add nothing to the amended claim. Nowhere is it alleged that appellant performed services for the decedent pursuant to an agreement between them that decedent would provide for appellant in his will. The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. LUJAN, McGHEE, and KIKER, JJ., concur. SADLER, J., not participating.