McDonald v. Mazon

Citations

• 23 N.M. 439
• 168 P. 1069

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY- THE COURT.</p> <p>1. _ Evidence examined, and held to establish the fact that there was a valid and sufficient consideration for the execution of the note sued on. . P. 442</p> <p>2. Where both parties upon the trial treat an exhibit as having been introduced in evidence and upon the facts shown by such exhibit judgment is rendered by the trial court, and without such exhibit such judgment could not have been-rendered, neither party can, on appeal, contend that such exhibit was not introduced in evidence. P. 444</p> <p>3. Where a party claims rights under a written contract, or agreement represented by separate writings, and the language of the contract, upon which his rights depend, is ambiguous or uncertain, the burden is upon such party to introduce evidence to explain the ambiguity and to show by extrinsic evidence that the right he claims is conferred upon, him by the contract. P. 445</p> <p>4. The Supreme court lias power to reverse a joint judgment as to one and affirm as to the other, where the facts and law justify such action. Sections 4074, 4076, and 4078, Code 1915, abrogate the common-law rule, which required the reversal of such a judgment as to all parties jointly liable, where it was erroneous as to one. P. 447</p> <p>5. Where persons jointly liable under a judgment of the district court appeal from the same and -give a joint supersedeas bond, and such judgment is reversed as to one of such parties, the other oecomes liable under such bonds as a surety. P- 447</p> <p>6. Where a supersedeas bond is executed, sureties thereon cannot escape liability by showing that such bond does not literally comply with the language of the staute, if the condition expressed is substantially of the same import.</p> <p>P. 447</p>