Brown v. Lockhart
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before J. W. Crumpacker, Associate Justice. The law will not presume fraud. Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved by the party alleging the same. Clark v. White, 12 Peters 196; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 IT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Bernalillo county, before J. W. Crumpacker, Associate Justice. The law will not presume fraud. Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved by the party alleging the same. Clark v. White, 12 Peters 196; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 IT. S. 609. Although the relation of husband and wife existed and does exist between Henry Lockhart and Ellen L. Lockhart, and although Henry Lockhart’s name was put on the original stake by mistake, as the evidence clearly shows, which name was erased and the name of Ellen L. Lockhart substituted, yet these facts are not sufficient to…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT.
MILLS, C. J.
1 There are seventeen findings of fact in this case, and the record shows that the defendants excepted specifically to seven, viz.: — the fifth, sixth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth, While the assignment of errors set out in the brief, shows that the defendant in addition to the findings set out above seeks to base errors on findings numbered four, seven, eight, nine and ten. This court has repeatedly held that we will not consider errors, except those which are jurisdictional, unless exceptions to them are saved. Newcomb v. White, 5…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Strong v. EakinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by14 opinions
- Morgan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Campbell v. CampbellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1957
- Humbird Lumber Co. v. DoranIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Atlantic Refining Company v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1957
- Davidson v. ClickNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.