{
  "id": 1575449,
  "name": "Lee CLICK, d/b/a Best Printing Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITHO SUPPLY COMPANY, a New Mexico Corporation, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Click v. Litho Supply Co.",
  "decision_date": "1981-01-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 13103",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "421",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.M. 419"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "622 P.2d 1039"
    }
  ],
  "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": "82 N.M. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5326296
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2835067
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 4496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.819,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.902832091058122e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5355209898337703
    },
    "sha256": "d2419373b821c996f751e2b375bc9a2fc6bcbd4b09602c86e5f6811add6450fd",
    "simhash": "1:408374f83b4227e5",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:15.389388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "EASLEY, C. J., and FEDERICI, J., concur.-"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Lee CLICK, d/b/a Best Printing Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITHO SUPPLY COMPANY, a New Mexico Corporation, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nPAYNE, Justice.\nThe plaintiff, Click, sought to recover damages for breach of contract and for money due in the amount of $5,818.69. The defendant, Litho Supply Company, answered denying that the contract had been breached or that any money was due the plaintiff.\nTrial was set for 9:00 a. m. on January 31, 1980, in Lovington, New Mexico. Because of a conflicting out-of-state business commitment, Litho\u2019s president, who resided in Albuquerque, sought a continuance. He did not seek the continuance until the day prior to trial. When counsel was unable to reach the judge to obtain the continuance, Litho\u2019s president obtained confirmed reservations on a commercial flight to Hobbs for the same evening and planned to travel by car from Hobbs to Lovington. On arrival at the airport in Albuquerque, he was informed that the flight had been cancelled due to inclement weather. He then made plans to drive through the night to Loving-ton, but upon inquiry was discouraged by the State Police from the making the trip as the roads were dangerous due to ice and snow. The next morning, when trial was scheduled, another attempt was made to contact the judge, but he had already left for Lovington from Hobbs. Local counsel appeared for Litho and requested a continuance until the president could arrive. This motion was denied.\nTrial was held with counsel for Litho participating, however Litho had no witnesses present and could not establish a defense. At trial, the court approved the plaintiff\u2019s motion to amend the prayer for damages in its complaint by almost $4,000 and granted judgment to plaintiff. After the trial, Litho filed a motion under N.M.R. Civ.P. 60(b), N.M.S.A.1978 (Repl. Pamp. 1980) to set aside the judgment. A hearing was held with an opportunity for Litho\u2019s witness to be present and the motion was denied. Litho appeals that denial. We reverse.\nWe hold that the motion to set aside the judgment should have been granted. Relief under Rule 60 is discretionary with the trial judge and will be reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion. Home Savings & Loan Ass\u2019n v. Esquire Homes, Inc., 87 N.M. 1,528 P.2d 645 (1974); Guthrie v. U. S. Lime and Mining Corporation, 82 N.M. 183, 477 P.2d 817 (1970). The trial court had before it at the motion hearing affidavits of Litho\u2019s president and of a second witness supporting the inability to make the flight connections and the hazardous driving conditions. The court also had before it a letter from the airline\u2019s agent confirming the cancellation of the flight and indicating that the witnesses had tickets and were at the airport in time to catch the plane. Litho\u2019s president also testified at the hearing and explained the circumstances surrounding his failure to appear.\nIn denying the motion the court emphasized that: (l)Litho\u2019s president had sought an earlier continuance for business reasons on the day before trial; (2) Litho\u2019s president had delayed until that same day to obtain transportation to the trial, and (3) Litho had little contact with its attorney prior to trial. While these factors suggest that Litho was remiss in its planning and preparation for trial, they are not sufficient by themselves to support the refusal to set aside the judgment. The request for the first continuance should have no bearing on the disposition of the motion, especially in view of the good faith effort by Litho\u2019s president to attend trial after the denial. The fact that the president did not make reservations until the day prior to trial may show a casual attitude towards the trial but is not relevant to the issue at hand. Even if the same arrangements had been made a month prior to trial, the unexpected cancellation of the flight would have had no different effect than when the arrangements were made earlier on the same day. Finally, the failure of Litho to prepare for trial through consultation with its attorney, though not good practice, does not support the trial court\u2019s denial of the motion.\nFor these reasons, the trial court\u2019s judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial on the merits.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nEASLEY, C. J., and FEDERICI, J., concur.-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PAYNE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shollenbarger & Sandager, John T. Sandager, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Samuel M. Laughlin, Jr., Hobbs, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "622 P.2d 1039\nLee CLICK, d/b/a Best Printing Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITHO SUPPLY COMPANY, a New Mexico Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 13103.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJan. 30, 1981.\nShollenbarger & Sandager, John T. Sandager, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nSamuel M. Laughlin, Jr., Hobbs, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 453
}