{
  "id": 1557887,
  "name": "LAS CRUCES MOTOR CO. v. CONOVER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Las Cruces Motor Co. v. Conover",
  "decision_date": "1930-05-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 3434",
  "first_page": "15",
  "last_page": "16",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 N.M. 15"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "288 P. 1065"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.683,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.241134503737358e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38571901296175953
    },
    "sha256": "b5f96f5f89bbd0a4a160c990526cc4dc00112207c307a647226e7c3bc20e690f",
    "simhash": "1:90ee92243a826a4a",
    "word_count": 214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:25.112313+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J., concur.",
      "CATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LAS CRUCES MOTOR CO. v. CONOVER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nWATSON, J.\nThis appeal is from a judgment for the purchase price of farm machinery. The defense was breach of both an alleged express warranty and an alleged implied warranty of efficiency. There was also a cross-complaint for damages occasioned by the breach.\nThe trial court refused to find that the machinery was unfit for the purposes for which designed, and for which appellant contends it was warranted to be efficient. This refusal, Unless erroneous, is decisive of the case.\nThere was, no doubt, evidence sufficient, if believed by the trial court, to have warranted him in making the requested finding. But there was also substantial evidence to the contrary. It is contended that appellee\u2019s witness was so impeached as to render his testimony unworthy of belief. That was a matter for the trial court to determine.\nUnder the familiar substantial evidence rule, there is nothing this court can do but affirm the judgment and remand the cause. It is so ordered.\nBICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J., concur.\nCATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holt & Holt, of Las Cruces, for appellant.",
      "R. L. Young and W. C. Whatley, both of Las Cruces, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3434.\nMay 8, 1930.]\nLAS CRUCES MOTOR CO. v. CONOVER.\n[288 Pac. 1065.]\nHolt & Holt, of Las Cruces, for appellant.\nR. L. Young and W. C. Whatley, both of Las Cruces, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0015-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 44
}