{
  "id": 1590413,
  "name": "Floyd GOODGION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodgion v. Commercial Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1955-08-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 5939",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 N.M. 39"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "287 P.2d 235"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "52 N.M. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1579479
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/52/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.M. 30",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557921
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/35/0030-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N.M. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582025
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/54/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 P. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.M. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2387229
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/21/0212-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3225,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.677,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2978378276107989
    },
    "sha256": "4ddfe08ae7430066585356dca7a23c30ffa76ce3cfdce1c5ae72f7f57c25bccf",
    "simhash": "1:f9c64bac33852a77",
    "word_count": 544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:04.217233+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "COMPTON, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and KIKER, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Floyd GOODGION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LUJAN, Justice.\nFloyd Goodgion (appellee) recovered a judgment against the Commercial Insurance Company of Amarillo, Texas (appellant), for the sum of $1,150 for the loss of a 1952 house trailer by theft and which loss appellee alleged was covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant company to him. He claims that under coverage D-Theft (Broad Form) of said policy the defendant company insured against loss of or damage to the house trailer by theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage. Defendant answered, claiming that appellee had either conveyed the trailer house and it was no longer owned by him, or alternatively it was subject to either a bailment, lien or conditional sale not specifically described and declared in the policy and coverage was excluded under the terms of said policy.\nThis case was tried to the court without a jury and the issues, as framed, were resolved in favor of appellee, hence the appeal.\nThe court was not requested to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, and no tendered findings of any kind whatsoever, by either party, were presented to the court. No specific findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court. Only a general finding was stated, namely, that the court \u201cfinds the issues in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant,\u201d and a judgment was entered granting appellee the relief prayed for in the complaint. The only exception taken was as follows: \u201cTo which the defendant excepts.\u201d\nRegarding an exception of this nature, Mr. Justice Parker speaking for the court, in Fullen v. Fullen, 21 N.M. 212, 153 P. 294, 297, held that it conveyed \u201cno intimation that the decree was erroneous, or, if so, upon what ground\u201d, and we reaffirm that holding. The exception there was: \u201c \u2018To which decree, judgment, and orders defendant then and there duly excepts.\u2019 \u201d\nIn the case of Garcia v. Chavez, 54 N.M. 22, 212 P.2d 1052, as here, no specific findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court, and none were requested or tendered by either party, and we quoted affirmatively from Alexander Hamilton Institute v. Smith, 35 N.M. 30, 289 P. 596, as follows:\n\u201c \u2018Most of appellant\u2019s assignments of errors resolve themselves into this, that the judgment should have been for the defendant on the evidence. But it was for the district judge, and not for this court to determine what conclusions the evidence would warrant. If the defendant desired a review of the whole case in this court, he should have had the facts found, as well as the conclusions of law dependent upon them, and we could then have determined whether the conclusions were well founded. This court sits, not to try cases de novo, but as a court for the correction of errors. (citing cases).\u2019\u201d\nThis case is controlled by our decisions in the above cited cases. See, also, Veale v. Eavenson, 52 N.M. 102, 192 P.2d 312.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, C. J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and KIKER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LUJAN, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wesley Quinn, Lewis C. Cox, Jr., Clovis, for appellant.",
      "Hartley & Buzzard, Clovis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "287 P.2d 235\nFloyd GOODGION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 5939.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 23, 1955.\nWesley Quinn, Lewis C. Cox, Jr., Clovis, for appellant.\nHartley & Buzzard, Clovis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 65
}