Court Opinion

ID: 9553207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:25:24.347057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:19.864635
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing LUJAN, Justice. The defendants have moved for .rehearing. We have carefully examined the mor tion as well as the briefs supporting it and find nothing to persuade us the opinion on file announces a wrong result. It may be well, however, to emphasize one or two factors so much relied upon as establishing error in the opinion filed. It is said there is no specific finding of the representation relative to a $77,000 mortgage held by First National Bank in Albuquerque. True enough, but the mortgage of the bank in the amount mentioned was but one element or factor in the confused state of title, made up of a sizeable number of pyramided purchase contracts held at varying times in the chain of title by sundry persons, knowledge whereof was fraudulently concealed from the plaintiffs, as set out in the findings and expressly found by the court. Furthermore, but for Landers’ unseemly solicitude to completely erase his name and all prospect of liability from the transaction with Agnew, as evidenced by substitution of a “no recourse” endorsement on the Beeble note and the securing of an assignment of Beeble’s contract directly to Agnew by Beeble leaving him, Landers, completely out of the picture, he might reasonably have expected notice from Mrs. Motto along with all others in the chain, of title down to himself, thereby giving him the opportunity, now seemingly so much coveted, to step in and save the purchase contract. In other words, in his overzealous effort to insulate himself against all possible future liability in connection with the matter, he “insulated” himself out of the right to notice of default, which he now says or claims would have given him an opportunity to save himself. The record abounds in proof of a gross fraud on plaintiffs. If the $23,000 note he “hawked” to Agnew has any value, he gets it back. If it is worthless he still gets it back. The motion for rehearing will be denied. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C. J., and SADLER, J., concur. KIKER, J., not participating.