Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Atma v. Munoz

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1944No. 4763Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBickley, Justice

I concur in the decision that the trial court committed error against the appellant in making its finding and conclusion that there was no mutuality of obligation between the parties under the contract, and that the contract was therefore unilateral and unenforceable. Since this is the only decision the trial court made as a basis for its judgment, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

From the opinion of the majority it appears that the trial court construed the pertinent paragraph of the lease, “to authorize the appellant-lessor to terminate the lease at her…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Di Palma v. WeinmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Chavez v. McKnightNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1857
  3. State v. BakerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API