OPINION
The appellant U. S. Lime and Mining Corporation, the defendant below, seeks to set aside a default judgment granted to the appеllee pursuant to its motion under Rule 60(b) (§ 21-1-1(60) (b), N.M.S.A. 1953). The court after hearing the evidence found that the defendant failed to establish inadvertence or excusable neglect or that it had a good and valid defense to the cause of action and denied the motion рrovided a certain credit was given to the appellant on the amount of the judgment.
For its argument, the appellant says the district court abused its discretionary power in refusing to set aside the default judgment for the reasons that (1) there was never any valid service of process on the appellant; (2) the appellant presented meritorious defenses which it should be permitted to rаise on trial; and (3) there was no showing by the appellee of аny intervening equities.
As to the first point, the record, and supplement thereto, show by a return of service that the initial pleadings, the cоmplaint, the order to show cause and the temporary restraining order were served in person on an officer and the agеnt for service of the appellant, within Grant County, New Mexico, оn June 16, 1969. Furthermore, the record also shows that on June 26, 1969, an attornеy appeared on behalf of the appellant for thе hearing on the order to show cause, approved the оrder entered by the court on behalf of the appellant and was then personally given a copy of the first amended cоmplaint by the appellee’s attorney. There is no merit to рoint one of the appellant.
As to the remaining two points, we are faced with the specific findings of the district court that the appellant failed to establish inadvertence or excusable neglect or that it had good and valid defenses to the action. These findings were made after each side had full opportunity to present its evidence. We note that court in its order then rеfused to set the judgment aside provided the appellant was grаnted a credit against the judgment in the amount of $1,110.22. All of this, particularly thе allowance of the credit, indicates that the court inquired fully into the merits of the motion, and did not in a perfunctory manner refuse the relief requested by the motion.
Despite the presence or absence of intervening equities, the basic rule is stated in Conejos County Lumber Co. v. Citizens Savings & Loan Ass’n,
“Appellant argues that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. Our rules provide for the setting aside of a default judgment for good cause shown. Secs. 21-1-1(55) and (60), N. M.S.A.1953. This is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling will not be reversed except for abuse of that discretion. Wooley v. Wiсker,75 N.M. 241 ,403 P.2d 685 (1965); Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co.,70 N.M. 209 ,372 P.2d 797 (1962). Discretion, in this sense, is abused only when the trial judge has acted аrbitrarily or unreasonably. * * * ”
On the record, we cannot say that the triаl court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or was unaware of the general policy that disputes should be tried on their merits rather than settled by default judgment. Wooley v. Wicker,