Renehan v. Lobato, 5412
| Decision Date | 01 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 5412,5412 |
| Parties | RENEHAN v. LOBATO et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
R. P. Fullerton, Santa Fe, for appellants.
Watson, McIntosh & Watson, Santa Fe, for appellee.
The appellants seek the reversal of a decree quieting title in the appellee in a 25-acre tract of land in Santa Fe, and denying their claim to an undivided one-half interest therein.
The trial court made the following findings of fact:
'1. That on September 14, 1905, Brigida Lovato, Leandro Lovato, Apolonio Lovato and Ramon Lovato conveyed an undivided 1/2 interest in a larger tract of land including the 25-acre tract described in the Complaint and in Defendants' Lovato Answer herein to Mariano F. Sena and A. B. Renehan, and that said conveyance was duly recorded with the Clerk of Santa Fe County and appears on page 66 in the Abstract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
'2. That thereafter and pursuant to the terms of said conveyance said A. B. Renehan, a practicing attorney in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, did appear in Cause No. 4545 on behalf of said Lovatos and Cause No. 4926 in their behalf and as plaintiff, and likewise in Cause No. 6544, all of the District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and all involving said land and real estate and that said causes were later consolidated into Cause No. 20496, District Court of Santa Fe County, New Mexico.
'3. That on August 29, 1911, Leandro Lovato and Lorenza Rael de Lovato, his wife, did convey unto A. B. Renehan for a valuable consideration an undivided 1/2 interest in the 25-acre tract described in defendants' Lovato Answer and involved in the present action, and more fully set forth in the decree filed herein, and that said deed was duly recorded with the Clerk of Santa Fe County and appears in the abstract, plaintiff's Exhibit 1, at page 109.
'4. That by the conveyance of 1905 above described and by the conveyance of 1911 above described, Leandro Lovato and his wife did convey all of their right, title and interest in and to the 25-acre tract described in defendants' Lovato Answer and the Decree herein.
'5. That by deed dated the 17th day of April, 1919, Mariano F. Sena did convey all of his right, title and interest in said 25-acre tract to A. B. Renehan and that said deed was duly recorded with the Clerk of Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and appears in the supplemental abstract, plaintiff's Exhibit 9.
'6. That on December 26, 1924, a final Decree was entered in said consolidated causes 20496, District Court of Santa Fe County, whereby this Court found A. B. Renehan to be the owner in fee simple of the 25-acre tract substantially as described in defendants' Lovato Answer and the Decree filed herein.
'7. That the following named defendants are all heirs of Leandro Lovato, to-wit: Guadalupe Lobato de Gonzales, Apolonio Lobato, Ramona Labato Duran, sometimes known as Roman Lobato Duran, Moises Lobato, Lugarda Lobato Sparr, Leandro Lobato, sometimes known as Leandro Lobato, Jr., Francisco Lobato, Getrudis Lobato, sometimes known as Gertrudis Lobato, Solomon Lobato, Antonia Lobato Chapman, sometimes known as Lobato Chapman, George L. Miller, Charles L. Miller, Filiberto Miller, sometimes known as Filberto Miller, Anita Miller Romero, Francisca Miller Sandoval, Augustin Rodriguez, Jacobo Rodriguez and have no interest in the said 25-acre tract other than by inheritance from their ancestor, Leandro Lovato.
'8. That the plaintiff did submit proof of a separate and independent title to said 25-acre tract by virtue of a conveyance to her husband A. B. Renehan, from T. D. Burns dated May 4, 1910, the description of which covers this property, and that plaintiff's Exhibit 7 presents a good chain of title to the tract involved herein from February 2, 1852 to August 2, 1929.
'9. That upon the death of A. B. Renehan, the plaintiff in this action, Marietta P. Renehan, the residuary devisee under his will, did obtain all of his right, title and interest in and to the land involved herein.
'10. That for a period of 10 years and more after the Decree in Cause No. 20496, District Court of Santa Fe County, A. B. Renehan and his successor, the plaintiff herein, did have possession continuously and in good faith under color of title and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seismograph Service Corporation v. Bureau of Revenue, 5895
...and they are set aside. Ritter-Walker Co. v. Bell, 46 N.M. 125, 123 P.2d 381; Bounds v. Carner, 53 N.M. 234, 205 P.2d 216; Renehan v. Lobato, 55 N.M. 532, 237 P.2d 100; Provencio v. Price, 57 N.M. 40, 253 P.2d The appellant has set out so much of the statute with which we are concerned as t......
-
McCauley v. Ray
...that there may have been contrary evidence which would have supported a different verdict permit us to weigh the evidence. Renehan v. Lobato, 55 N.M. 532, 237 P.2d 100; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, 74 N.M. 442, 394 P.2d 593. * * We hold that testimony which was presented at the hearing ......
-
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis
...that there may have been contrary evidence which would have supported a different verdict permit us to weigh the evidence. Renehan v. Lobato, 55 N.M. 532, 237 P.2d 100; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, 74 N.M. 442, 394 P.2d 593. Viewing the evidence in that aspect, it meets the substantial ......
-
Ortiz v. Mason
...that there may have been contrary evidence which would have supported a different verdict permit us to weigh the evidence. Renehan v. Lobato, 55 N.M. 532, 237 P.2d 100; State ex rel. Reynolds v. Lewis, 74 N.M. 442, 394 P.2d 593. * * We have examined the record and evidence submitted to the ......