Title: Buchanan v. Carpenter
Citation: 338 P.2d 292, 65 N.M. 389
Docket Number: 6386
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 1959

338 P.2d 292 (1959) 65 N.M. 389 L.C. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ancil CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6386. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 21, 1959. J.B. Newell, Thomas B. Rapkoch, Las Cruces, for appellant. R.C. Garland, James T. Martin, Jr., E. Forrest Sanders, Las Cruces, for appellee. PER CURIAM. It is ordered that the original opinion and the opinion on rehearing, heretofore filed herein, be and the same are hereby withdrawn and the opinion to follow substituted therefor. SADLER, Justice. Upon further consideration of this cause upon rehearing, we have concluded that in the first and original opinion filed we erroneously announced that appellee's (defendant's) motion for dismissal of the appeal was not well taken and should be denied, as it was in the concluding paragraph thereof. The action was one in ejectment and the appellee's motion to dismiss was based upon absence from the record of the testimony of one Hanson, an expert surveyor and engineer, who testified in the cause and, indeed, was the only expert witness who did testify on defendant's behalf after having made a survey by permission of the court of the two small tracts of land involved, the trial court stating at conclusion of the trial, "I am going to have to have further evidence before I can intelligently decide this case." After the record in the case had been made up, as it now appears on file herein, and as tendered to defendant's counsel for settlement and signing of the bill of exceptions, a waiver was submitted to them which they signed, consenting that without any further notice, "the trial judge may sign and settle said bill of exceptions subject to all proper objections and exceptions thereto as being incomplete or otherwise objectionable." A few days later and on January 14, 1958, defendant's attorneys filed a formal written objection to the signing and settling of the bill of exceptions in the case until such time as the testimony of *293 the witness, Norman A. Hanson, might be transcribed and included in the record for the following reasons: On the same date, to-wit, January 14, 1958, J.B. Newell, Esq., made the following request to the court and it was followed by a colloquy between the court and counsel on each side, as follows: The reporter's certificate which was executed by Jimmy R. Galloway, the court reporter but who resigned as such before the record was completed, purported to show that the record was a full, true and correct transcript of the testimony taken at the trial. Such was not a correct statement, as the record on its face shows, and particularly the judge's statement that the record is not a full and complete transcript of such testimony and, by the statements, made by counsel for both parties as well as certain stipulations between the parties, hereinafter mentioned. As a background to the foregoing colloquy between the trial judge and opposing counsel it should be pointed out that on July 19, 1957, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for extension of time within which to perfect appeal and prepare transcript, giving as a reason therefor that the official court reporter had been unable to complete transcript due to stress of business, but would be able to do so within a period of two more months. On the same day the court granted such extension until September 19, 1957. Shortly prior to the date mentioned and on September 16, 1957, opposing counsel entered into a stipulation giving plaintiff (appellant) until October 19, 1957, within which to complete the transcript and file the appeal in the Supreme Court. October 12, 1957, defendant's counsel further stipulated with plaintiff for an extension until November 19, 1957, within which to complete the record and file same in the Supreme Court. A few days before and on November 15, 1957, defendant further stipulated with opposing counsel extending his time for perfecting appeal by filing transcript in Supreme Court until December 19, 1957. December 12, 1957, the time for such purpose was further extended by stipulation of counsel giving plaintiff (appellant) until January 20, 1958, within which to complete the transcript and file his appeal in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, and on January 15, 1958, counsel for plaintiff filed motion in the district court for extension of time to settle bill of exceptions reciting, among other things, that the transcript had been filed in the cause and notice given to opposing counsel to have the same settled as a bill of exceptions on January 14, 1958, and that the attorney for defendant (appellee) objected to the court settling same because it did not contain the testimony of one of their witnesses and as neither attorney could make a statement as to what the witness had testified, nor could the court recollect the testimony due to the fact that it had been more than a year since the testimony was taken, the court of its own motion directed that a subpoena be issued for this witness to appear on Friday, January *296 24, 1958, with notes of his survey so that the court could ascertain, if possible, what his testimony had been. The motion went on to point out that the plaintiff's time for filing the record with the Supreme Court would expire on January 20, thereafter, and suggested an extension of 30 days to give ample time to include the statement of this witness of his testimony, to be included in the transcript. It was pointed out that this testimony was not included originally due to the fact that the stenographer claimed to have lost his notes of the testimony, which was said to be no fault of either party to the cause. As shown by the statement of the court hereinabove quoted, when the court convened to take the testimony of this witness, Hanson, pursuant to subpoena previously issued, the witness did not appear, being out of the state and residing in El Paso, Texas. Telephone communication with his wife indicated that he was absent on a surveying job and would not be back for a couple of days. This was the last heard of him and was all so far as he was concerned. He never appeared thereafter and his testimony, taken at the trial, is not and could not be included in the transcript. The sole question for our determination, therefore, is whether the defendant (appellee) can be compelled to rest a review of the case on the record without the testimony of this material witness. It is our considered judgment that he cannot. It has been so long settled as to be almost axiomatic that the duty of having a transcript properly prepared and filed, incident to an appeal, rests upon the appellant, or plaintiff in error. Only a few cases need be cited as declaring this proposition. Loftus v. Johnson, 22 N.M. 302, 161 P. 1115; Norment v. Mardorf, 26 N.M. 210, 190 P. 733; Baca v. Unknown Heirs, 20 N.M. 1, 146 P. 945. So much time had elapsed since the actual trial that none of the parties nor the court, itself, could supply from memory the missing testimony, as shown by a statement of the judge, to wit: But the witness had made a survey and unquestionably his testimony related to the survey and the boundaries of the property involved. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff takes the position, apparently, that the duty rested upon the defendant as an appellee to produce the missing witness and endeavor to resurrect his testimony. Neither party blames or finds any fault with the other for the unfortunate situation resulting in the loss of the court reporter's notes. We may be excused for quoting again a short excerpt of the colloquy between counsel exposing their relative views: In a final stand, the plaintiff as an appellant must seek to extricate himself from *297 the unfortunate position occupied by invoking the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 16, subd. 4. It, in effect, provides no appeal or writ of error shall be dismissed, or otherwise disposed of, except upon the merits, upon other than jurisdictional grounds without a showing of prejudice to the moving party, satisfactory to the court, or that the ends of justice so require. In a case of this nature where lines and boundaries are involved prejudice to the defendant or appellee can almost be presumed. Indeed, in our original opinion filed herein we displayed confusion on this very score. Counsel for defendant in brief supporting motion to dismiss, states: We are unable to say the defendant (appellee) does not present the showing of prejudice required, if the cause is to be reviewed without the testimony of the witness, Hanson. We should state that this appeal does not come before us on a praecipe calling for a partial record with a statement of the questions the appellant desires to have reviewed and portions of the record he deems essential to such review, as authorized by Supreme Court Rule 12. Presumably the cause comes up as if on a "complete record," though admittedly it is not complete. It is well, also, to say in closing that in withdrawing the two opinions already filed we intended thereby that all said in either by way of contrasting the function of the two limitation statutes discussed, namely, 1953 Comp., §§ 23-1-21 and 23-1-22, should be disregarded in view of fact the same was written by us unmindful of the amendment of § 23-1-22 by L. 1947, c. 145, or its significance, certainly, providing among other things that the person or persons described "so holding or keeping possession * * * for the term of ten (10) years" as thereinabove provided, should "have a good and indefeasible title in fee simple to such lands, tenements and hereditaments," an amendment neither specifically mentioned nor expressly commented upon by the court, or by opposing counsel in briefs filed in the cause. It is understandable how this easily could have happened. In the same year, by L.1947, c. 203, § 4 (1953 Comp., § 70-1-29) another proviso was enacted amending the law of conveyancing as it theretofore existed, declaring that quitclaim deeds of the kind mentioned should have the effect of a deed in fee simple to any interest the grantor owned in the premises described. So much was said in the briefs of both parties of this amendment or innovation touching quitclaim deeds, that everyone, court and counsel, as well as members of this Court, with their minds centered on it, simply overlooked the fact or the effect on 1953 Comp., § 23-1-22, of the amendment made by L.1947, c. 145, § 1, hereinabove pointed out. It follows from what has been said that the motion to dismiss is well taken and should be sustained. It is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and McGHEE, and COMPTON, JJ., concur. CARMODY, J., did not participate.