Title: Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Citation: 372 P.2d 801, 70 N.M. 215
Docket Number: 6854
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: March 27, 1962

372 P.2d 801 (1962) 70 N.M. 215 Harold ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6854. Supreme Court of New Mexico. March 27, 1962. Rehearing Denied July 25, 1962. *802 Schall &amp; Sceresse, Donald R. Fowler, Albuquerque, for appellant. McAtee, Toulouse, Marchiondo, Ruud &amp; Gallagher, Albuquerque, for appellee. CHAVEZ, Justice. Appellant, Harold Robinson, employed as a truck driver by appellee, Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., a corporation, filed suit in Bernalillo County to set aside an arbitrator's award which upheld appellant's discharge from his employment. The trial court found the issues generally for appellee and entered judgment dismissing appellant's complaint. This appeal is from that judgment. The record discloses that appellant, a long-line truck driver employed by appellee, was a member of Local 492 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as "Teamsters," and was involved in a truck accident which occurred in Tucumcari, New Mexico, on August 7, 1958. Donald V. Thorn, the operations manager of appellee freight lines, was notified of the accident and went to Tucumcari to investigate said accident. Appellant returned to Albuquerque on August 7, 1958, and Thorn returned to Albuquerque on the morning of August 8, 1958. Thorn then advised Robinson that his services as an employee of appellee were then and there terminated. On the morning of August 9, 1958, John LaNear, the president of Local 492, telephoned Thorn advising him that the Local was aggrieved over the firing of appellant and requested that the dispute be arbitrated pursuant to the established procedure followed by Local 492. Appellee and John LaNear orally agreed that said dispute and grievance would be arbitrated by Henry Weihofen on the afternoon of August 11, 1958, and on said date John LaNear appeared at said hearing, accompanied by appellant, and each party submitted to said arbitrator such facts, evidence and arguments as each party possessed. At no time did appellant or LaNear ask for a postponement or for additional time to bring in further evidence or witnesses. On August 13, 1958, the arbitrator filed his report and found, among other things, that appellant was discharged for what appellee deemed an accident chargeable to appellant, i.e., driving at excessive speed, *803 and that the evidence did not show that appellee was wrong in its judgment that the accident was due to appellant's fault. The arbitrator found that there was insufficient basis for interfering with appellee's judgment of the penalty to be imposed. Appellant's complaint alleged, and it was admitted by appellee, that there was an oral agreement between appellant's union and appellee to arbitrate disputed matters, and that the agreement includes disputes over the firing of an employee. Appellant offered proof that the arbitration was held at John LaNear's request and that Henry Weihofen, the arbitrator, was not sworn. The record discloses that on June 23, 1959, appellant filed in the clerk's office a request for admissions, pursuant to Rule 36. Said request called upon appellee to admit, within ten days after service of the request, that the quotation set out in appellant's request was a true and correct quotation from the Western States Area Over-The-Road Master Freight Agreement for the period of May 1, 1958 through June 30, 1961, and that the agreement included the state of New Mexico and is the master contract in existence between appellee and Local 492 of Teamsters. Article VI, "Disputes Procedure" was attached to said request for admissions. The record also discloses that on July 20, 1959, there was filed in the clerk's office an answer to request for admissions, unsworn and signed by appellee's attorneys, in which appellee denied that there was a master contract between appellee and Local 492 of Teamsters at the time of the dispute alleged in the complaint. The copy served on appellant was mailed January 16, 1959. The trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Appellant's first point upon which he seeks a reversal is that the trial court erred in not enforcing the agreement of May 1, 1958, referred to as the master contract. This is the contract referred to in appellant's request for admissions and is the agreement which appellant contends abrogated the 1955 contract and superseded the oral agreement by which disputes had formerly been governed. Appellant's position is based upon the fact that appellee's answer to request for admissions was unsworn and untimely filed, citing Sieb's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley, 8 Cir., 13 F.R.D. 113, and that it was an evasion, Aktiengesellschaft Der Harlander, Etc. v. Lawrence Walker Cotton Co. Inc., 60 N.M. 154, 288 P.2d 691. It is clear that, under our Rule 36 and the identical federal rule, either the unexcused late filing of an answer to requests for admissions or the filing of an unsworn answer is equivalent to the filing of no answer according to the terms of the rule itself and to innumerable decisions on the question, always providing, of course, correct procedure was complied with in making these requests for admissions. The procedure set forth in the rules must be strictly followed. United States v. Brandt, (D.C.D.Mont. 1948), 8 F.R.D. 163; Timmons v. United States, (4 C.C.A. 1952), 194 F.2d 357. Therefore, we need not consider appellant's claim that the answer filed was equivocal or an evasion. Rule 36, Rules of the District Courts of the State of New Mexico, provides as follows: However true the above rules of law are, they do not aid appellant. We do not here discuss the issue of whether the record is adequate in showing proof of service by appellant upon appellee, although we comment in passing that the record is incomplete in that it does not set out the actual certificate of mailing, the terms of which would be a prerequisite to proving proper service. Nor do we come to the actual question of whether the fact that the unsworn copy filed in the clerk's office necessarily indicates that the copy served upon appellant was unsworn. Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, (2 C.C.A. 1943), 133 F.2d 997, cert. den. 319 U.S. 743, 68 S. Ct. 1031, 87 L. Ed. 1700. It is the copy served upon appellant that must be sworn. Rule 36; Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, supra. In one case, however, this requirement was waived since the copy in the clerk's office showed that that copy had been verified, the opinion being based evidently on the ground of inadvertence or lack of prejudice. Hopsdal v. Loewenstein, (D.C.N.D. Ill., 1945), 7 F.R.D. 263, 9 F.R.Serv. 36 A. 54, case 1. There is a more basic and incurable error inherent in appellant's position, in that the request for admissions and the response thereto were not introduced in evidence. Rule 36 is not self-executing. In Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, supra, the court stated: Also, requests for admissions and a sworn response thereto are not pleadings, but evidence which is submitted after the pleadings are closed. Gilbert v. General Motors Corporation, supra. The request and the response do not relate to the issues to be heard and determined, but pertain to the manner or necessity of proof of the matters of fact set forth in the request. It is for the trial court to determine whether defendant's sworn statement relieves plaintiff of the necessity for proof of all or some of the matters of fact as are deemed to be necessary to plaintiff's recovery. All necessary facts not admitted must be proved at the trial. In the case of denial, it may be necessary in a particular case for the trial court to determine whether the sworn statement puts in issue the facts therein denied. It does no more than limit the scope of proof to controverted matters of fact. Van Horne v. Hines, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 346. While requests for admissions and responses thereto are part of the entire record, in the sense that any interrogatory or deposition becomes a part of the record because all are filed in the clerk's office under the requirements of Rule 5(d), Rules of the District Courts of the State of New Mexico, they do not become part of the trial *806 record proper until introduced in evidence. As evidence, they are subject, as are depositions and interrogatories, to the rules of admissibility; and as evidence, they must be tendered under the usual formal rules for introducing evidence. The record shows that appellant, evidently under the misapprehension that Rule 36 was self-executing and that nothing was needed to make his request for admissions part of the trial record itself, did nothing to tender this request into the record. A careful examination of the earlier motions for summary judgment likewise indicates that, because of the time sequence, the request could not have been a part of the documents contained therein. The only times, therefore, that appellant could have introduced this evidence were (1) when appellant's attorney made his initial tender of proof as to what the case involved, at which time he outlined the testimony he intended to adduce but said nothing of the master agreement, presumably following his original theory set out in his complaint; and (2) at the close of the hearing in the district court on February 26, 1960, when the following exchange occurred: Furthermore, at no time was the 1958 contract itself, or a copy thereof, offered in evidence. As appellee points out in his brief, appellant simply failed to prove his contention. Absent any evidence in the trial record concerning the existence of the alleged master agreement, appellant's attack on the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as being unsupported by substantial evidence, must fail. The trial court, after weighing the evidence in the record, found that the arbitration hearing was held pursuant to an oral agreement and there is substantial evidence in the record to support this finding. Appellant's last point is that the trial court erred in not setting aside the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator was not sworn. Appellant relies upon our arbitration statute which was approved January 16, 1860, Laws 1859-1860, and particularly § 3 thereof, being § 22-3-3, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., which provides: There are two other pertinent sections of our statute, being §§ 22-3-1 and 22-3-6, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as follows: and Our arbitration statute provides a method or procedure for litigants to arbitrate their suits or difficulties. However, nothing is said in our statute that common-law arbitrations are abolished. Thus, both methods of arbitration may exist, one under the statute and the other under the common law. They do not conflict with each other. McClelland v. Hammond, 12 Colo. App. 82, 54 P. 538. The only arbitration case in New Mexico that we have found is Moore v. Collins, 24 N.M. 235, 173 P. 547. In that case there was no written arbitration agreement between the parties and it was contended that there was a failure to prove submission to arbitration and award. This court rejected the argument stating: The rule that arbitrators need not be sworn at common law is found in 3 Am.Jur., Arbitration and Award, § 105, p. 932, as follows: In another Colorado case, Lilley v. Tuttle, 52 Colo. 121, 117 P. 896, the court said: There is another reason why appellant cannot prevail on this point. The parties to this suit, at the request of appellant's agent, Mr. LaNear, the president of Local 492, orally agreed to arbitrate the dispute. Appellant and LaNear appeared at the arbitration hearing. Both parties presented evidence and submitted their case to the arbitrator, a law professor at the University of New Mexico. Nothing was said by appellant and no objection was made, either before or during the hearing, that the arbitrator was not sworn. No request was made that an oath be administered to the arbitrator. *808 It has been held that a party participating without objection in a hearing before an arbitrator who was not sworn constitutes a waiver of the right to insist upon the oath. Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U.S. 581, 24 L. Ed. 1085. See also Cassara v. Wofford, (Fla. 1951), 55 So. 2d 102. The rule that the oath requirement may be waived is stated in 6 C.J.S. Arbitration and Award § 47(c), p. 189, as follows: In Rickman v. White, (Mo. App., 1924), 266 S.W. 997, also cited by appellant, the court said: For the reasons herein expressed, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and MOISE, J., concur. CARMODY and NOBLE, JJ., not participating.