{
  "id": 2804997,
  "name": "B. W. KINSOLVING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee REED, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kinsolving v. Reed",
  "decision_date": "1964-06-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 7423",
  "first_page": "284",
  "last_page": "285",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.M. 284"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "393 P.2d 20"
    }
  ],
  "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": "167 A.L.R. 785",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E.2d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Va. 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Va.",
      "case_ids": [
        2143931
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/va/185/0534-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 P.2d 947",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Cal.2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2347220
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-2d/40/0778-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.M. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2712755
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/62/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 A.L.R. 373",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.M. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841324
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/49/0097-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2551,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.689,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28471988135215603
    },
    "sha256": "cb87e302e01ccf9893e1c3af75b39462963ae5bdf224cbba1d3ab75f09e382c7",
    "simhash": "1:2f6ba2eb1542abba",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:44.283414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "B. W. KINSOLVING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee REED, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "NOBLE, Justice.\nPlaintiff, the owner of 320 acres of unfenced grazing land entirely surrounded by defendant\u2019s ranch, sued for the rental value of the land alleging that defendant\u2019s livestock pastured on his land. Defendant has appealed from a judgment awarding damages for such pasturing of plaintiff\u2019s land.\nPlaintiff asserts that his sole ground of recovery is on an assumpsit theory for defendant\u2019s use of the 320 acres of grazing land. An action in assumpsit for the use and occupation, under the old common-law forms of pleadings, was necessarily founded on the idea of a contract, express or implied, to pay a reasonable compensation for such use. It was conceded here that there was no express promise to pay rent. It then became necessary for the plaintiff to establish facts and circumstances from which the law will imply a promise to pay for the use and occupation.\nThe trial court found that plaintiff\u2019s lands were not enclosed by fences. Under \u00a7\u00a7 47-17-1 and 47-17-2, N.M.S.A.1953, defendant is not liable unless the trespass was wilful. Gallegos v. Allemand, 49 N.M. 97, 157 P.2d 493, 158 A.L.R. 373; Woofter v. Lincoln, 62 N.M. 297, 309 P.2d 622. The court made no finding of a wilful trespass.\nEven the fact that an adjoining owner, whose animals trespassed upon the unfenced land of another, did not have sufficient grass of his own to pasture his animals, was held in Gallegos v. Allemand, supra, to be insufficient to establish an intent that such animals should graze on plaintiff\u2019s land.\nSince the basis of the action in assumpsit is the fiction of an implied promise, which proceeds on the theory that the defendant\u2019s estate has been enriched and the plaintiff\u2019s estate has been diminished by a wrongful act of the defendant, see Weitzenkorn v. Lesser, 40 Cal.2d 778, 256 P.2d 947; Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. Ball, 185 Va. 534, 39 S.E.2d 231, 167 A.L.R. 785, it follows that where the statute specifically denies the right of recovery, as in New Mexico, \u00a7 47-17-2, supra, for trespassing animals on unfenced lands, there is no ground for any implication of a contract. Moreover, the trial court made no finding of promise to pay, express or implied.\nThe cause should be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint. It is so ordered.\nCARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "NOBLE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Humphrey, Jr., Ft. Sumner, for appellant.",
      "Mears, Mears & Boone, Portales, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "393 P.2d 20\nB. W. KINSOLVING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee REED, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7423.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJune 8, 1964.\nJohn Humphrey, Jr., Ft. Sumner, for appellant.\nMears, Mears & Boone, Portales, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0284-01",
  "first_page_order": 336,
  "last_page_order": 337
}