{
  "id": 1571170,
  "name": "Richard G. GARNER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carl A. Garner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garner v. Valley Savings & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1978-05-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 3407",
  "first_page": "725",
  "last_page": "727",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 725"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "580 P.2d 493"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 N.M. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2745678
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322753
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0170-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4602,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05874338619741923
    },
    "sha256": "9eef56fdea1941ac444a1170e19c5557c5c62f6016cb44c2d3e21b109db5a2bf",
    "simhash": "1:28b57b6684ecb371",
    "word_count": 755
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Richard G. GARNER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carl A. Garner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff sought recovery of money withdrawn from a savings account. Recovery was sought under two theories: (1) breach of the contract for a joint tenancy savings account, and (2) violation of \u00a7 48-15-106(B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 7, Supp. 1975). We discuss each theory. Our jurisdiction is based on the alleged statutory violation. Section 16-7-8(A), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4) and U.J.I. Civil 11.1.\nThe joint tenancy savings account was established in 1970. There were two authorized signatures \u2014 C. A. Garner (the father), and Howard Garner, one of C. A.\u2019s sons. When established, defendant was \u201cdirected to act pursuant to any one or more of the joint tenants\u2019 signatures ... in any manner in connection with this account and . to pay, without any liability for such payment, to any one ... at any time.\u201d\nIn December, 1975 Howard went to defendant\u2019s office and added three brothers \u201cas joint tenants on Said Account.\u201d Thus, with this addition, there were five joint tenants \u2014 the father and the four sons. Howard instructed defendant \u201cthat any three signatures were thereafter to be required prior to any withdrawal by any joint tenant from Said Account.\u201d Defendant noted these instructions on its records.\nIn February, April and July, 1976 the father withdrew from the savings account \u201cupon his signature alone\u201d. Plaintiff seeks recovery from the defendant for the sum of these withdrawals.\nBreach of Contract\nThe complaint alleges that the father contracted with defendant that three signatures would be required for withdrawals. There is no evidence that the father entered such a contract. There is no evidence that the father ever instructed defendant contrary to his instructions in 1970. Under the 1970 instructions, the father could withdraw from the account on his signature alone.\nPlaintiff\u2019s theory, reflected in his requested findings of fact and in his brief-in-chief, is that defendant contracted with Howard to require three signatures for withdrawals from the account. Any breach of such a contract is not involved in this appeal. This suit was brought by the personal representative of the deceased father; the suit was for the alleged breach of a contract with the father. There being no three-signature contract with the father, the estate\u2019s breach of contract claim fails.\n\u201cIt is a general rule of law that one who is not a party to a contract cannot maintain a suit upon it.\u201d Bank of New Mexico v. Rice, 78 N.M. 170, 429 P.2d 368 (1967). The estate of the father cannot maintain a suit on defendant\u2019s alleged contract with Howard because not a, party to such a contract. We add that no third-party beneficiary theory was advanced in the pleadings, at trial, or in the requested findings of fact. See Fredenburgh v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 79 N.M. 593, 446 P.2d 868 (1968). We point out that Howard is not a party to this lawsuit; he did not submit a claim based on his alleged contract with defendant. See Bank of New Mexico v. Rice, supra.\nSection 48-15-106(B), supra\nThe pertinent portions of \u00a7 48-15-106(B), supra, state:\nBy written instructions given to the institution by ail the parties to the account, the signature of more than one [1] of the persons . . may be required on any check, receipt or withdrawal order, in which case the institution shall pay the money in the account only in accordance with the instructions . . . . (Our emphasis.)\nIt is undisputed that the father never gave a written instruction to defendant that more than one signature was to be required for a withdrawal.\nSeeking to avoid the statute, plaintiff again argues the alleged contract between defendant and Howard, and its asserted breach. Again, we point out that such a contract is not involved. This suit was by the estate of the father; in dealings with the father, defendant complied with, and did not violate \u00a7 48-15-106(B), supra. Plaintiff also argues that defendant waived the statute and, by its conduct, should be estopped to rely on the statute. These arguments also go to defendant\u2019s dealings with Howard; they do not pertain to the father or to the father\u2019s estate.\nThe judgment against plaintiff is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harvey W. Fort, Rosenberg & Fort, Carlsbad, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Chad Dickerson, Losee, Carson & Dickerson, P. A., Artesia, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "580 P.2d 493\nRichard G. GARNER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carl A. Garner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 3407.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 23, 1978.\nHarvey W. Fort, Rosenberg & Fort, Carlsbad, for plaintiff-appellant.\nChad Dickerson, Losee, Carson & Dickerson, P. A., Artesia, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0725-01",
  "first_page_order": 761,
  "last_page_order": 763
}