Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank
New Mexico Supreme Court
418 P.2d 191 (1966)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Richard Loucks (plaintiff) and Del Martinez (plaintiff) formed a partnership named L & M Paint and Body Shop (L & M) (plaintiff). Martinez borrowed $500 from Albuquerque National Bank (the Bank) (defendant) on February 8, 1962, which was prior to the formation of L & M. On March 15, L & M opened a checking account with the Bank. The signatures of both Loucks and Martinez were required to withdraw funds from the L & M account. Two payments were made on the Martinez loan from the L & M account. Martinez subsequently defaulted on the loan, and the Bank withdrew the outstanding balance of $402 from the L & M account on March 15, 1983. This left only $3.66 in the L & M account. Loucks and Martinez went to the Bank on March 18, 1963 and informed the Bank that the debt was a personal debt of Martinez. Loucks and Martinez also told the Bank that L & M had outstanding checks drawn on the L & M account. The Bank refused to re-credit the L & M account and dishonored at least nine checks. Loucks, Martinez, and L & M sued the Bank for wrongful dishonor of the checks and sought compensatory and punitive damages. Loucks, Martinez, and L & M presented evidence that some businesses would no longer take checks from L & M based on the dishonored checks or refused to offer L & M credit. The trial court dismissed all claims except for the $402 alleged to be wrongfully taken from the L & M account. The jury returned a verdict of $402 against the Bank. Loucks, Martinez, and L & M appealed the dismissal of the remaining claims to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Omen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
