SWOPE V. HALL, 1965-NMSC-149, 75 N.M. 756, 411 P.2d 233 (S. Ct. 1965)
EDNA SWOPE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TATE HALL, Defendant-Appellant
No. 7680
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
1965-NMSC-149, 75 N.M. 756, 411 P.2d 233
December 06, 1965
Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Scarborough, Judge
Motion for Rehearing Denied February 14, 1966
COUNSEL
{*757} McKENNA and SOMMER, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Appellant.
BIGBEE and BYRD, ARTHUR COLEMAN, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for Appellee.
JUDGES
COMPTON, Justice, wrote the opinion.
CONCUR:
M. E. NOBLE, J., IRWIN S. MOISE, J.
OPINION
COMPTON, Justice.
{1} The grounds for reversal urged in this appeal are identical with those considered and disposed of by the court this day in Hoefer v. Hall, cause number 7679. The cases were consolidated on appeal and by authority of the case, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a hearing upon the merits.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
CONCUR:
M. E. NOBLE, J., IRWIN S. MOISE, J.
MOTION FOR REHEARING
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
COMPTON, Justice.
{3} We have no doubt that the written terms of a promissory note can be explained by parol evidence, at least so far as it concerns the right of a maker of a note to offset an account then existing against the note. Bromfield v. Trinidad National Investment Company, (C.A. 10, 1929) 36 F.2d 646, 71 A.L.R. 542; Note in 71 A.L.R. 548, 570; B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Brooks, (Fla. App. 1959) 113 So.2d 593, and authorities cited therein. By affidavit filed in the case, it is made amply clear that an issue of fact in this regard was present. Accordingly, this ground furnishes no sufficient basis for the court's ruling.
{4} The motion for rehearing should be denied, and IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
M. E. Noble, J., Irwin S. Moise, J.