{
  "id": 8501663,
  "name": "Phillip RABY, d/b/a Raby Floor Covering, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTPHALL HOMES, INC., and Mr. and Mrs. Victor W. Westphall, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Raby v. Westphall Homes, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 7708",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.M. 252"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "414 P.2d 227"
    }
  ],
  "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": "358 S.W.2d 943",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10179005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/358/0943-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 So.2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9852265
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/145/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.M. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1589335
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/59/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.M. 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5372643
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0672-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4303,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.628,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.466054985575766e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6582762161037188
    },
    "sha256": "7d96e2a5af0e2a47261f6d7dbb6904e7602492cf3eeff1fa739d9a19fa4b40ae",
    "simhash": "1:b2d8618067015718",
    "word_count": 696
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:29.378515+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "NOBLE and COMPTON, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Phillip RABY, d/b/a Raby Floor Covering, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTPHALL HOMES, INC., and Mr. and Mrs. Victor W. Westphall, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CHAVEZ, Justice.\nThis is an appeal by defendants-appellants seeking a reversal of the trial court\u2019s decision, awarding full compensation to plaintiff-appellee for installation and laying of carpeting in defendants\u2019 apartment house.\nThe trial court found that on or about July 31, 1962, plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendants, whereby plaintiff would install certain tile and carpeting in defendants\u2019 apartments for $6,782.67. Plaintiff installed all tile and carpeting as provided by the agreement and received $4,150.-00 from defendants, leaving a balance due of $2,632.67. Defendants did not object to the installation of the tile and withheld payment solely because of certain claimed objections to the color and quality of the carpeting. The trial court found that, in installing the carpeting, plaintiff -was not acting as a contractor and was' not required to have a contractors\u2019 license, as defined and required by \u00a7\u00a7 67-16-1 through 67-16-20, N.M.S.A., 19S3 Comp. It also found that plaintiff had complied with the agreement and awarded compensation to plaintiff in the sum of $2,632.67, solely for the installation and laying of the carpeting.\nThis court has considered the definition of a contractor under the Contractors\u2019 License Law in two situations, wherein the work involved the installation of items in a building. In Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200, we held that an electrical contractor was a contractor within the purview of \u00a7 67-16-2, supra, and was required to allege that he had a contractors\u2019 license at the time he performed his service.\nIn an earlier case, Fischer v. Rakagis, 59 N.M. 463, 286 P.2d 312, we considered a situation in which a carpenter had done certain work. The facts of the case show that the plaintiff had installed a bar, some shelving, a partition, an accordion door, three other doors, built liquor storage, as well as making a door opening, and cutting down show windows. We said that \u201cthe chattels were fabricated into the building,\u201d and concluded that plaintiff\u2019s recovery was barred because he did not allege that he was a licensed contractor.\nIn Fell v. Messeroff, (Fla.App. 1962), 145 So.2d 238, the court found that wall-t'o-wall carpeting was 'not an improvement and 'not subject 'to the provisions of the Mechanics\u2019 Lien Law. In Ruby v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, (Tex.Civ.App. 1962), 358 S.W.2d 943, the court referred to \u2022the removability of wall-to-wall carpeting \u2019and reached the conclusion that it was not part of a dwelling .which' was covered by insurance.\nThe reason for the many classifications of such carpeting by the various courts is because they often look to the intent of the parties in determining the outcome of the type of litigation involved. Here we are concerned with the intent of the legislature.\nIt is clear to us that the legislature had a reason for excluding anyone \u201cwho merely furnishes materials, or supplies without fabricating the same into * * * [a structure].\u201d Section 67-16-2, supra. We do not feel that the laying of a wall-to-wall carpet accomplishes the same degree of \u201cimprovement\u201d or \u201cfabrication,\u201d which the work by the electrical contractor or the carpenter in our cases above cited required. While it is true that .the carpet is attached to the floor at the edges, it remains readily removable and is more of a decorator item than an improvement.\nWe hold that a wall-to-wall car-peter is not a contractor within the purview of \u00a7 67-16-2, supra, and that plaintiff was not required to allege and prove that he was \u25a0a licensed contractor to maintain this cause of action. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.\nAlthough we affirm the trial court\u2019s decision, we do not believe that plaintiff is entitled to excess damages as allowed by \u00a7 21-2-1(17) (3), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. It' does not appear that defendants were appealing for the purpose of delay and excess damages will not he awarded.\nIt is so ordered.\nNOBLE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CHAVEZ, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hines & Mistretta, Albuquerque, for appellants.",
      "Sheehan & Duhigg, Albuquerque, for ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "414 P.2d 227\nPhillip RABY, d/b/a Raby Floor Covering, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTPHALL HOMES, INC., and Mr. and Mrs. Victor W. Westphall, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 7708.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 9, 1966.\nHines & Mistretta, Albuquerque, for appellants.\nSheehan & Duhigg, Albuquerque, for ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 287
}