Court Opinion

ID: 9563468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:40:07.981652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:52.017614
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). It has been said that “a dissenting opinion has no function except to express the private view of the dissenter.” Wall v. Sonora Union High School District, 240 Cal.App.2d 870, 50 Cal.Rptr. 178 (1966). The same is true of a special concurring opinion. Neither has any binding effect as precedent. Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So.2d 745 (Fla.App.1960), 95 A.L.R.2d 1029. However, a dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals may, perhaps, provide a sufficient basis for review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Section 16-7-14(B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Bauer’s fifth claim for relief is the subject of this appeal. A claim for relief is not a Beethoven symphonic presentation which concludes with a Brahms’ melody. Bauer’s complaint alleged that the defendant Bates Lumber Company employees group life insurance trust was the designated beneficiary under a group life insurance policy; that defendant William C. Bates was designated as Trustee to receive the proceeds paid under the policy, and also designated to pay the proceeds to the person entitled to receive the money; that the money was paid to these defendants; that plaintiff was entitled to receive the proceeds. Plaintiff demanded judgment against defendant William C. Bates, Trustee, and defendant Bates Lumber Company Employees Group Life Insurance Trust, and against each of them. These named defendants admitted the above allegations, but denied that plaintiff was entitled to receive the money. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that Bates Lumber Company, Inc. was designated as the beneficiarv and received the proceeds. The trial court concluded that Bates Lumber Company, Inc. held the proceeds in trust for plaintiff. Judgment was entered against the defendant Bates Lumber Company, Inc. Bates Lumber Company, Inc. was not mentioned as a party in the fifth claim for relief. “No citation of authority is needed for the proposition that facts admitted in the pleadings will be accepted as true both here and in the court below.” Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. v. McCray, 89 Ariz. 307, 361 P.2d 734 (1961). 25 Seventh Decennial Digest, Pleading, § 36(1), (2), (3); 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 59. The rule is also clear that a judgment against a defendant concerning whom no allegations are made in the complaint, or against whom no relief or judgment is sought, is unauthorized and void. 49 C.J. S. Judgments § 51; Butts County v. Pitts, 97 Ga.App. 353, 103 S.E.2d 150 (1958); Hesker v. Shaffer, 394 Ill. 489, 68 N.E.2d 612 (1946); O’Brien v. Greene Production Co., 151 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Civ.App.1941); Brawner v. Welfare Finance Corp., 104 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio App.1950); Allen v. Jungkans, 45 Ill.App.2d 287, 195 N.E.2d 436 (1963). Under the fourth claim of relief, plaintiff was awarded total compensation allowed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, with attorney fees and costs. Under the fifth claim, she seeks an additional recovery of the proceeds of a group insurance policy. The evidence is uncontradicted that this insurance policy was taken out by Bates Lumber Company, Inc., a self-insured employer, to be used for the purpose of paying workmen’s compensation benefits under statutory law. There was no other reason for the insurance. To set forth the testimony would not be helpful. The iudsment should be reversed.