{
  "id": 2838318,
  "name": "AMERICAN GENERAL COMPANIES, a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Sel JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "American General Companies v. Jaramillo",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 1724",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "183",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 182"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "538 P.2d 1204"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5326183
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.M. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2713829
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/62/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322732
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5360352
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "610"
        },
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4761,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.21094753864321e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4766297185666037
    },
    "sha256": "098686476baf5abdff952f2efa1c07bdefe1a01c46525307aebdb0d8cd587ed5",
    "simhash": "1:2faf146a5d5793d0",
    "word_count": 751
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "AMERICAN GENERAL COMPANIES, a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Sel JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant in the sum of $5,350.80 and defendant appeals. We affirm.\nDefendant did not challenge any of the findings of the trial court pursuant to Rule 9(m)(2) of Rules Governing Appeals [\u00a7 21-12-9(m) (2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Int.Supp.1974)]. \u201cThe trial court\u2019s findings are conclusive on appeal.\u201d Springer Corporation v. American Leasing Company, 80 N.M. 609, 610, 459 P.2d 135, 136 (1969).\nThe trial court found:\n1. That Defendant was employed in the fiduciary capacity of salesman and collector by United Wholesale Liquor Company, Inc., in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, during the years 1966 through 1969.\n2. That during the course of Defendant\u2019s fiduciary employment, Defendant did misappropriate and convert funds in the amount of $5,350.80 belonging to United Wholesale Liquor Company, Inc.\n3. That Plaintiff, American General Companies, had entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff agreed to indemnify United Wholesale Liquor Company, Inc., for any and all losses caused by conversion or misappropriation of funds by an employee of United Wholesale Liquor Company, Inc.\n4. That by reason of the conversion and misappropriation of funds of United Wholesale Liquor Company by Defendant while in the fiduciary capacity of salesman and collector during the years 1966 through 1969, Plaintiff became obligated to pay and did pay the sum of Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty and 80/100 Dollars ($5,350.80) to United Wholesale Liquor Company, Inc.\n5. That as a direct and proximate result of said conversion and misappropriation, by Defendant while engaged in the fiduciary capacity Plaintiff was damaged in the sum of Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty and 80/100 Dollars ($5,350.80).\nA. United Wholesale was not an indispensable party.\nDefendant contends that United Wholesale Liquor Co., Inc. was an indispensable party. This is because United Wholesale submitted a claim in excess of $7,000.00 and was reimbursed for some $5,000.00. An indispensable party is one whose interests will necessarily be affected by the judgment so that complete and final justice cannot be done between the parties to the suit without affecting those rights. C. de Baca v. Baca, 73 N.M. 387, 388 P.2d 392 (1964).\nPlaintiff indemnified and paid United Wholesale in \u201cfull settlement and satisfaction of all liability under bond on behalf of Jose Sel Jaramillo\u201d, the defendant. United Wholesale, having been paid in full, has no interest which can be affected by the judgment between the parties. Plaintiff is the real party in interest because plaintiff is the owner of the right sought to be enforced. Sellman v. Haddock, 62 N.M. 391, 310 P.2d 1045 (1957).\nComplete relief can be accorded between the parties in the absence of United Wholesale because United Wholesale has no interest in the litigation.\nDefendant relies on Sellman v. Haddock. This case is not in point. The parties are reversed. Plaintiff sued defendant for property damage resulting from a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff\u2019s insurance carrier paid the garage for a part of the cost of repair of plaintiff\u2019s vehicle and authorized plaintiff to collect from the defendant. The insurer had an interest in the claim against defendant for damages done to plaintiff\u2019s car because it was entitled to the money to be recovered.\nIn the instant case, plaintiff, the insurer, upon payment of the entire claim of United Wholesale was \u201csubrogated to all the insured\u2019s rights of recovery therefore against any person . . . .\u201d Since all of United Wholesale\u2019s rights of recovery are in plaintiff, United Wholesale has no interest in the outcome of the litigation and is not an indispensable party. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Foundation R. Ins. Co., 78 N.M. 359, 431 P.2d 737 (1967).\nB. Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the court\u2019s findings of fact is not an issue.\nThe defendant did not challenge the trial court\u2019s findings. \u201cWe need only determine if the trial court\u2019s conclusions and the judgment are correct, based upon the facts found.\u201d Springer Corporation, supra.\nThe trial court concluded, on the basis of the facts found, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment. We hold that the trial court\u2019s conclusion and the judgment are correct.\nThe sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the court\u2019s findings of fact is not an issue on this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James A. Branch, Jr., Branch & Branch, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Steve H. Mazer, Miller & Melton, Ltd., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "538 P.2d 1204\nAMERICAN GENERAL COMPANIES, a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Sel JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1724.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 23, 1975.\nJames A. Branch, Jr., Branch & Branch, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nSteve H. Mazer, Miller & Melton, Ltd., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 212,
  "last_page_order": 213
}