Fowler v. W. G. Const. Co.

P.2d 160 et al. CO. v. W. CONST. FOWLER G.

No. 4963.

Supreme Mexico. New Court of

Aug. 6, 1948.

Rehearing Jan. Denied Fe,

Seth & Montgomery, Jones, of Santa Hardie, Howell, Paso, & El Grambling Tex., and Brand, Hobbs, R. of John appellees.

SADLER, Justice. appeal presents major questions This two decision. (1) fol- lowing entry of awarding a com- pensation for disability under our Work- Compensation men’s Law in which to suspend compensation declined or reduce unless employee surgi- a cal per- calculated to reduce centage disability, reopen of the court can the matter modify in this respect more 30 days entry, than after though even expressly toso do be therein; reserved (2) may an em- ployee, compensation otherwise entitled to by reason compensable of having incurred a injury, compelled to suffer reduction or suspension of compensation unless he con- sents to which does endanger reasonably his life and is cal- percentage culated of disabil- ity injury? course, negative Of a inquiry answer to the first will render un- a necessary of decision one. second Hence, we seek immediately the true an- question propounded. swer to the first The claim for arose rea- injury son of an suffered in the course Reese, George employment L. Lon P. Wat- (appellant) Jr. Carlsbad, kins, appellant. collapse both of a scaffold June place, stipu- dropping it was thereby the course of which standing he on which was might lated accept in the resulting ground $252 him Following tendered accrued left heel. fracture his unpaid date, prejudice his were treatment injury, surgical medical and hear- rights W. employer, day in the case. On the his furnished ing, in- appears very de- which Company, one to have G. Construction dep- formal, fendants, paid only pleadings and was arising Dr. ortho- Bywaters, wheth- osition W. question time. Some T. short Texas, pedic substantially physician Dallas, before might er disability court, papers operation, concerning the defendants filed with the duced developed, the de- in the case a examina- misunderstanding physical demand for compensa- fendants, stopped payment physicians, tion two Dallas Williams, from date having paid same next above and P. C. named partner, paid by for total expenses injury to be week. rate defendants. No formal order seems have at the $18 following hearing. been entered this 1944, 3, plain- the Thereupon, on March compensation tiff his claim filed hearing further The matter came on the interposed by de- an answer was which at August before the court fendants, by an answer followed amended By- deposition Lovington. The of Dr. pleaded payment They filed 1944. June mentioned, waters, again put above was aforesaid, of offered and the meantime plaintiff, evidence. The $252, payments, tendering the to' resume physical the having examina- submitted payments from were accruing date amount defendants, report requested the of filing of answer. suspended to the date examination, 1944,pre- July dated pay- to continue these further offered Dr. the medical firm pared by Bywaters of obligation by relieved the ments until of By Dallas, Texas, waters Williams and order of the court. The defendants evidence; report by an- also a was read authority alleged competent medical that Dallas, orthopedic physician of which had agreed, both It was Sim Driver. cent, a 10 loss in counsel, by all that the condition court foot that use left but of his was no at different plaintiff’s foot declined to hearing what it was at time this hearing former time of upon foregoing which the day June 13, 1944. filed, hearing took amended answer judg- fifty (550) hearing, not more than hundred five

At some time this judge, weeks, paid, signed by previously less prepared ment him, namely attorney,. hearing, pay and that they also to his bearing the date of entry not although Neal, filed C. Melvin August sum of as his. $500.00 findings Formal matter, 1944. including until December in this to and fees the- requested hearing 9th, either side and not August 1944. were none, although the made “It Is Further Considered And Ordered' was, at the finding that contains a By Judgment the Court subject that this compen- by a thereof, totally disabled date defendants future date- above, injury indicated sable of a nature reopen purpose the .same for de- further, reads: proceeding termining whether Plaintiff should be re- medical appearing quired oper- “It Further to submit himself to a the claimant who have examined authorities ation.” agreement as to whether are not in days prior A few fore- performed be should going on December that such at this time ankle claimants motion,, formal defendants filed written adviseable might be

operation might or reciting touching salient historical facts in the future. treatment, plaintiff’s injury, negotia- that at this time appearing “It Further looking operation, tions to an recom- payment default defendants physicians, mendation therefor certain cause reasonable competent, alleged the furnishing should or excuse and Claimant plaintiff by type- defendants of certain paid compensation during the continuance by Dr. shoe recommended Driver but that attorney’s fees disability and of his had failed to discard his. the sum of be allowed in $500.00 he still used them. The crutches reasonable, sum the Court finds un- plaintiff’s refusal to up motion set including the to and performed services notwithstanding operation, the- dergo the 9th, August hearing of pay- expressed willingness to defendants’ alleged expenses all incident thereto. Ordered, Adjudged And “It Therefore Is operation proposed would further that the pay Claim- that the Defendants Decreed point per plaintiff’s the condition to a correct at the rate of $18.00 ant cent, commencing days the dis- week, seven after date not than where more prayer during was ability the remain. injury on would vf June plaintiff required disability but for that the of his total continuance advised, operation however, his com- that suffer reduction if at the end of that a time, pensation appropriate satisfactory progress for the dis- not been had opera- ability made, likely following operation presently by remain advised proposed. plaintiff’s Bywaters this Drs. answer Williams and should per- required formed. At January, 1945, this hearing motion denied operation, position submit to or that com- the took the that, defendants petent opinion approve waiting months period medical three Dr. by advised operation. having elapsed Driver improvement and the expected materializing, physician this step proceedings The next in the took join recommending would himself now place date, January 1945. On operation. a hearing Lovington, held at New 27,. report Dr. Badger’s of November Mexico, on the issues raised apparently 1944,discouraged hope improve- further and an motion the aforesaid ment suggested by use of the shoe thereto, and parties swer the court seem Dr. hearing, this Dr. Testifying at Driver. ingly the fact unmindful of that the motion Badger joined in approving same kind of been refiled operation Bywaters of Dr. Again reports on December 1944. Badger physician of Dallas. Dr. is the who- Bywaters Drs. and and Dr. Williams first plaintiff treated advised that he Driver in evidence Sim were introduced Bywaters be taken Dr. in Dallas for ex- and, addition, report Dr. W. E. a diagnosis. As amination witness at Hobbs, Badger Mexico, dated New No agreed this hearing, he that it not be could It should be vember recalled that with assurance Dr. Driver Bywaters, reports of Drs. Williams and join would now with Drs. Williams July and Dr. dated Sim Driver Bywaters in recommending Dallas, 1944, were be dated June opportunity an to re-examine the August 9, fore the court hear at plaintiff following three months trial opin divergence ing. There use of him. shoe hear- advised Driver, hand, on the ion between Dr. agreement ing closed in apparently an Bywaters on Drs. Williams approval parties with court’s other, to the wisdom examination of another Dr. Driver time. recommended that in Dallas. Driver try type shoe, out a certain increasing a progressively hearing use of the and final foot The next occurred months, of three before 1945. The over had re- re pursuant agreed Dallas under- sorting to He turned 446 hear-

standing por- at close of After findings, reached these adjudicating ing immediately preceding January 1945, 10th tion order, 14, August entered again Is, Dr. Driv- Therefore, was there examined “It reads: That the Ordered report er Bywaters. and also Defendants compensation pay continue of each based on the latest exam- physician, Claimant at pe- the maximum rate for a ination, riod of following January evidence. were months was read in eleven 19, 1945, agreement operation lapse now that that of such entire eleven they permitted months only hope for be and au- substantial relief offered pay thorized to compensation Claimant at appreciable promising ony reduction in the the rate per week for an plaintiff’s $4.50 additional disability. weeks; of 100 having made reports Accordingly, these based payments, such they be relieved the ob- opinion contained there- evidence ligation to pay any further amounts com- in, hearing on the conclusion of the Feb- pensation ; that in the event Claimant elect signed court order ruary undergo operation such not later than bearing modifying previous judgment days 60 from 13, 1945, March the offer to 9, 1944, although actually August date operation such performed at Defend- until December filed for expense ant’s being force, still in De- again Briefly, found its latest fendants shall receive per credit for 75 plaintiff’s disability judgment that order or cent of the paid by them to finding the additional was total made Claimant after January and shall permanent unless that would also receive credit sum of $40.00 performed operation on his foot. was furnished to defray Claimant to the ex- operation described was the order penses of his trip last to Dallas for exam- therein finding made and a it would ination.” plaintiff’s permanent to not It will recalled that the per centum and maxi- of 25 in excess December finding also contained a recovery mum could totally that the end expected 11 months from its disabled at the compensation at awarded him the rate contained the further find- date. The pay during that defendants week ing offered continuance of his dis- $18 expenses ability incident and that not to but exceed 550 (the weeks essential, plaintiff, appropriate the same was but award for total nevertheless, disability). had refused permanent declined to order and that his refusal same reduced in the unreasonable. event

447 oper- jurisdiction judgments court holds over unwillingness generally. C.J.S., page Judgments, certain 49 ation at that time § Louis, 584; Mo. Wil- defendants. and Hill v. St. physicians testifying Williams, Ky. liams v. S.W. 716. to authorized thus theWas trial court language The act to in the relied judgment modify order or the and amend right the modify original sustain to the by on De- entered it made and theretofore judgment respect the indicated is 1941 in though incorporating even cember 57-920, Comp., reading: any “If work- § express reservation of judgment the in unsanitary injuri- persist in or man shall question pre- do? This jurisdiction so to imperil practice ous which tends to or and a decisive first consideration the sents recovery refuse sub- his shall to tard or the one, ruled in favor of should be if it mit to such medical or treatment challenge the vigorously defendants who promote reasonably his essential changes the jurisdiction make court’s recovery, the may court in discretion at the time it it did. did suspend compensation.” or his Although argument persuasive in the paragraph It is found of a second plaintiff’s con presented support in of the part imposes up- section first the of which question, a re jurisdictional the tention injured employee, upon written re- study controlling satis statutes view and employer quest right the of his where without was not court the trial fies us exists, compensation under the act judgment entered jurisdiction reopen the time, physical to submit to a time to exam- suspend payment, December by competent physician, ination to be a ordered, compensation previously paid by employer, for selected and or thereby, unless awarded court, by right with the one selected operation pro undergo the until he should present employee physician have a judgment The itself contained posed. him. paid by selected for defend- re jurisdiction express language reservation place prac- this on a ants would with, further consideration open judgment for to, make analogous tical parity or However, Comp., 57-925, this found matter. reservation in 1941 of this § right employer have been unto jurisdiction giving to re- applicable employee statutes awarded quire any effect unless force or modify power to amend him- the court or for under the act to submit gave by. duly examination a li- manner it self to medical judgment purpose of physician the stated for censed day during which district the 30 a plaintiff urges upon so determining has a construc- the workman us tion power application will limit earning far recovered that his quoted language section above from 57-920 to any is restored. kind work § compensation prior or workman awarded cases claims “Any mentioned reads: trial language act and the disability under this the later previous to section to cases shall, where claim for (§§ 57-931) 57-901— compensation, compensa- either agreement pur- falling due of instalment or contest, suant trial event a judgment therefor in the has provided placed judgment. support requested There is upon the language of section for person bound later employer, any other this or to it. construction as The condition therefor, under submit himself to may compelled the workman physician a li- examination medical examination, submit to medical state, suffer practice medicine this censed to suspension payment in the of his com- designated this state place within at a pensation upon refusal, is that he must demanding which shall person so been “awarded for dis- workman, reasonably convenient ability” request and the to make may have licensed workman for medical examination to be exercised is of his own selection. present physician by employer “previous falling be to purpose such examination shall due any compensation instalment has re- workman determine provided judgment for in the power therefor” earning so that his covered ours). etc. (Emphasis restored, court shall of work is kind upon empowered evidence such to hear mainly Plaintiff relies the New Mexi- by hearing. If it be discovered issue co cases of Norvell Co., Barnsdall Oil v. hearing that diminu- examination and such 421, 41 150, N.M. 70 P.2d Garcia v. Ander- disability has taken or termination of tion son, 517, 686, 41 71 N.M. P.2d and Hud- court shall diminution or place the son Co., v. Herschbach Drilling 46 N.M. payment compensation termination 330, 1044, in support 128 P.2d of his claim If may the workman facts warrant. jurisdiction as the trial court was without to submit such ex- modify judgment case refuses 12, such in of December same, right 1944, obstructs or when it amination as did. For cases from monthly payments suspended shall be jurisdictions Gray cites us v. Co., place, 767, examination has taken Powder and Hercules 160 such Kan. 165 payable 447; P.2d compensation during shall United Co. v. Pillsbury, Fruit no 369; D.C., 55 Crane of refusal.” F.2d Enamelware Co., such

449 902; judg- authority law for Dotson, 401, to set aside such 152 Tenn. 277 S.W. v. Dotson, (2nd ments.” Crane Co. v. Enamelware 1045,

Appeal) 20 159 S.W.2d Tenn. Anderson, supra, Garcia v. is cited Com- and Kline v. Industrial Insurance support contention See, mission, 101 172 P. 343. Wash. days prior motion of defendants filed a few also, A.L.R. extensive annotations in entry judgment of December Co., 12, 1944, Drilling subsequent In Hudson v. Herschbach treated as refiled supra 1045], judgment we to the P.2d of such N.M. [46 Jan- 57-916, quote Comp., relating uary when the issues raised § cases, heard, judgments compensation in fol- as the motion would stand denied were “Any judgments : ren- lows by operation up- not ruled of law because hereunder dered and executions issued shall days date. filing on within after such gov- same force and effect and have the Nothing the Hudson case us in judg- laws erned of this state here, controls the decision if we can find in or executions in civil cases.” ments jurisdic- language retaining act itself and then observe: modify district court gen- must “We look to the statutes judgment December as it did. authority judg- eral law for to set aside We believe the sections of the act two applicant if the cases ment question dealing directly most con- workman, employer but if the or his is the us, 57-925, fronting namely, 57-920 and §§ surety applicant, provision is complement when read each other and itself, made therefor the act pari authority confer materia on the trial reopen previous statutes' are “Workmen’s plaintiff. rights, remedies and generis awarding sui create judgments, authorizing procedure which exclusive. are 57-916 on Section provided law derogation common and are for future instalments executions or affected the Code of affidavit of the controlled for in equi- unpaid procedure and that at law workman that same suits actions continues, applica- provided Pound adds: ty except “Unless therein. v. have, 468; previous to the issuance of tion 187 Smith shall Gaulding, Ala. So. execution, filed with Mo.App., been made and Kiel, 115 S.W.2d But the such v. parties provides some one that we said clerk Mexico act must New judgment against been ren- procedure general whom said has code of look to the recovery? circumstances, the physician, mote Due appointment of for dered may as im- (§ ascertainment 57-920) of the latter with section accordance portant before due hereof, examination purpose of for the rapid issuance advancement workman, new discoveries and in which event In surgical further await the medical science. execution shall of such premises.” (Em- words, in 57- authorized in the the examination § order of the discovering purpose for the ours). is phasis bring 'to devising means best calculated worthy of that the limitation note is physical exmina- recovery. The about on execution to an pur- for the tion mentioned in 57-925 is § ap- already is entered pose what extent ascertaining to physical made in plication examination employed This have succeeded. means 57-920, very section, with the accordance claim of must be denied. error provision authorizing re- which contains suspension of duction or consideration turn now to a We by workman to submit ’“to such refusal namely, whether question, second of the as is surgical reason- or treatment medical plain reducing the the trial court erred promote recovery.” his ably essential appro amount from an tiff’s affix the limitation on act ap amount permanent to an priate to total application for right to to an execution disability. partial In propriate to total workman made medical examination of the compensation, reducing pur- 57-925, sole accordance with § and entered on signed whether he ascertain pose of which tois incorporated the court August power earning far recovered that has so follows: findings, pertinent any kind of work restored. is totally as a disabled Claimant “That stated, statute, as com- of the sections injury, will be of his result 57-916, plement Under even each other. § until an unless and permanent entered, execu- though judgment has been foot; disa- on his that such performed application has been may be denied pain principally of in the bility consists physical accord- examination made arthritis condition in the to an due foot purpose 57-920. What is the ance § bone; heel and ankle joint between the examination, if not to determine the request- the Defendants heretofore “That disability in the the workman’s extent submit to an Claimant another, ed case, or, to determine what foot, being triple known the same as a pro- will best treatment medical the subas- designed to Claimant arthrodesis stabilize following the thereto, entitled operation operation, tragalar joints, Claimant pay compensation which and to for the competent partial undergo; resulting permanent that med- disability declined fol- lowing namely,'Doctors recovery E. ical Bad- authority, operation; W. from such that Claimant has ger Mexico, oper- Doctors refused to Hobbs, such New and ation and Dallas, that his refusal Bywaters of Driver T. so do is un- Sim and W. ; reasonable Texas, having owes after Claimant Claimant Defendants examined duty January 19, submitting operation the recom- to such concurred order to oper- disability; the amount of mendation that claimant ation, contemplates Claimant opera- which submitted to such removal when last cartilage January bone tendered him from the heel between 1945, he bone, reasonably could ankle bones forcing thus these ex- they pected so into close have attained contact with one another maximum covery grow together period within would thus fused and therefrom be eleven stating operation operation.” re- months from the that such would date of the an curing correcting in partially sult adjudicating portion of the order al- present disability; that such Claimant’s ready has been out. set Under terms operation func- would normal restore paid to be permanent except tions of the foot permanent disability total for 11 disability of .25 excess thereto January months from the date motion, per foot, cent due to loss of he was tendered and refused the physicians. operation pro- “The Court finds that the period further represented This of months operation posed reasonably is essential to time the physicians bring- estimated promote recovery and effect Claimant’s ing plainfiff recovery maximum present from his and that his testimony dis- the While medical ability thereby spoke major reasonably expected opera- of the procedure can as a orthopedic type, phy- an tion of one of the reduced to more than cent foot; testifying, sicians “We Defendants, continued: do not the use of the ordinarily think such dan- such doctors had advised that the same gerous. dangers en-, performed, tendered such any operation those of agreed defray giv- counter in Claimant the ex- secondary penses pay compen- incident anesthetic ing thereto infection. * * * long things happen occasionally. for so of time Those sation 1470, many touching ques A.L.R. major opera- cases probably as safe as will and dis tion involved be found listed do.” we orthopedic type that tion of an to which the annota cussed. cases By- Dr. testifying, physicians The three appended, their tions are order of Badger, all waters, Dr. Driver reporting, are A. Albrecht O’Brien Albert v. operation recommending the concurred in 601, Co., 101, 206 Mich. A.L.R. 172 N.W. 6 reducing substantially as a means 1257; Henley Railway Oklahoma Union v. attorney own disability. His plaintiff’s 427; Co., 488, 224, 81 197 18 Okl. P. A.L.R. The undergo urged that he & Zinc v. State In Consolidated Lead Co. want the why he did not plaintiff explained Commission, 83, 210, dustrial 295 P. 147 Okl. the view operation performed by expressing 1298, Jackson, A.L.R. 73 and Robinson v. he doubtful would be that the outcome 1466. 116 184 A. 105 A.L.R. N.J.L. him. He it would benefit not think (cid:127)did to that an rule deducible seems main stating: “The two up summed injured compensa- workman will be denied I do not know reasons are because incapacity may be re- tion for an which and the the ether my heart would stand operation an a moved or modified put to to me to be gas that would character, simple suf- involving not serious main rea- operation, and the undergo the fering an danger. A refusal to or is because have it done not want to son I do operation such circumstances under any.” benefit me I think would do not it Lead Consolidated deemed unreasonable. reduc- contained in order findings Commission, Zinc& Co. v. Industrial State plaintiff’s compensation ex- at the ing hand, supra. operation if the On the from the piration of 11 months time major be of character and attended supported him operation tendered member, serious risk to life or the rule is The trial court’s evidence. substantial injured employee’s refusal to sub- that an plaintiff’s un- refusal was conclusion un- operation mit to such is deemed not only proper one is the reasonable reasonable, should not findings made. The au- from the deduced State be denied on that account. Grant v. ac- fully support the trial court’s Commission, thorities 102 Or. Industrial Accident entitled: an “Work- annotation tion. Under 201 record P. Examination injured Duty of em- Compensation: operation proposed, men’s satisfies us that the al- to take though physicians to submit ployee designated one ap- orthopedic earning capacity”, “major operation of an restore as measures to supplemented type,” justifiably in in could be 6 pearing A.L.R. dangerous 105 life or A.L.R. classified limb. A.L.R. characterizing trial was warranted examination of record seems whole plaintiff’s plain, refusal as make unreasonable that the reason for with- it ordering only reduction holding this order but event of a refusal. well the earlier one entered December 12, 1944, periods for the indicated was argues Counsel because the give more up time make compensation, signed Feb reducing and, mind perhaps, to become satisfied ruary until Au was not entered proposed operation. Whatever gust it until the latter date was not reason, all force to the doc- giving put an election refer trine that a is not effective until put ence so when entered, said, certainly it cannot nor does expired already to it under terms lie assert, it mouth to or, language of the order use of his every given opportunity he was not to ac- counsel: descended “the axe simultan- cept, expense defendants, eously with the determination.” He adds: operation It, indeed, tendered. would be appellant’s (plain- “That reduced repudiation boldly pro- of what the record tiff’s) compensation immediately although claims, to hold otherwise. under could still receive $18.00 The judge unusually trial was solicitous appel- week for four months. The about of the rights throughout ex- August 14, lant any- could not on 1945 do him every safeguard. tended judg- preserve rights except thing appeal.” to his ment he entered is correct and should be plaintiff, himself, was in court affirmed. had just testifying finished as a witness sois ordered. judge when the trial announced from the bench order he what as a re- make J.,C. BRICE and COMP- LUJAN hearing. sult last of this As a witness TON, JJ., concur. repeated this hearing, plaintiff final the than once to more his decision not (cid:127) McGHEE, below, J., having tried case the the phy- by three participate. did not by attorney. urged sicians and his own even already His been reasons have stated. Rehearing. for On Motion by signed it is While true the the order rehearing been actually for filed February not Motion has court on was plaintiff (appellant) questions the later, entered until six it was stated months opinion on several of the filed argument challenge, at correctness what oral parties. opin- present any the the representing persuaded are not grounds. We we over- respects chal- When we made statement the erroneous is ion fair- ordinarily, Accordingly, and in looked determining, we this fact. lenged thus quoted lan- much of dispose a ness to counsel the same so by moved to should feel this circum- guage motion. as makes mention of denying the merely formal order counsel nor questions is withdrawn. Neither However, plaintiff the stance counsel for by the for- opinion prejudiced client men- his should accuracy a statement something to challenge deny a declara- to mer’s failure said tioning failure to argument present. not transpired when was opposing oral he counsel have tion of entry for withholding from reason for as to token, course, defend- Of same touching com- orders periods certain stated prejudice through ants suffer no disputing pensation. While not meaning, giving substitution of counsel having made, he disclaims was declaration trans- characterization effect to what points he out that heard same and plaintiff pired repre- below when position no it he would have been heard quar- We counsel. no sented represented affirm, having deny or to steps with counsel’s statement of rel trial. plaintiff at the ordinary predicate sequence he taken in as reducing- complained appears suspending a workman’s language unwarrantably original where following from sentence submit to treatment fuses to found it is true the opinion, wit: “While reasonably improvement essential court on signed recovery. Where and the actually six months or counsel was not entered argument with- to whether there had later, at oral differ it was stated plaintiff. anything challenge, what examination of If out refusal can plain, make that the out to stand in this record it whole record seems only court, withholding from counsel defendants and reason February, en- order but well earlier one left this counsel periods a refusal hearing tered December faced indicated, give more judge which the submit up -and, perhaps, mind make time to bench he was announced recom- proposed to mending penalty become satisfied under a reduction operation.” plaintiff’s compensation persisted in if he The court said: refusal. signifi- to attach

It is unfair counsel to his something (after argument failure to deny cance “The Mr. Court: — transpiring at a at which Brand) trial he was not I anything do not how I can do see in this except on this to order a reduction fused, urgings even in the face of from his compensation. eleven I believe man’s counsel, although own as indicated the door reduce it longest is the time months open continued be held him for some if refuses twenty-five percent after that he time through. had he seen fit to enter operation. have They to take the would now, court, insisting Even in this while pay him time had it. all that if he legal right the naked to time a re- each “The Witness:—-I believe fusal to follow formal order entry specialists they what are these should know judge which the from the announced bench doing, wrong they and if about one making, present he was give counsel can no another, I thing they about could assurance, none, at least offers that if the specific want out- would to know what the remanded, cause should be come of this be. would operation. would submit to signifi- It is cant that not during once various hearings you “The both think Court: — below willingness did indicate a very improvement.” have decided approved by same the court. quoted signed, The order hereinabove pronounced face of unwillingness In the 194'5, bearing date although testimony, do so as shown by then August withheld from may thought superfluous counsel have obviously plaintiff, thought with the inquire. bench, judge as indicated The motion rehearing will be denied might change suffer of heart and submit operation. course, Of the matter otherwise, handled It is so ordered. present regularity appearance sequence. objection But orderly was not BRICE, J.,C. COMP- LUJAN behalf, taken or that TON, JJ., concur. being given opportunity following was not entry of elect to sub- McGHEE,

mit J., having In mind tried case be- low, participate. already court and all counsel

Case Details

Case Name: Fowler v. W. G. Const. Co.

Court Name: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 14, 1947

Citation: 188 P.2d 160

Docket Number: No. 4963.

Court Abbreviation: N.M.