Preteca v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 58.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1892
• Docket Number: 58.
• Citation: 50 F. 674
• Parties: PRETECA et al. v. MAXWELL LAND GRANT CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

50 F. 674

PRETECA et al. v. MAXWELL LAND GRANT CO.

No. 58.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 16, 1892

Alexander Graves, for appellants.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District Judge.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge.

The complainant filed its bill in equity in the court below alleging that it was the legal owner of the lands described in the bill known as the 'Beaubien and Miranda Grant;' that complainant's 'title to the said lands has been established at law by divers actions of ejectment, duly and regularly brought and prosecuted to judgment in the courts of the territory of New Mexico, by and on behalf of your orator and those through whom it derives its title, against persons in like situation with said defendants, which said actions at law involved and depended on the same questions of title now in controversy between your orator and each of said defendants; that your orator and, as it is informed and believes, its several predecessors in interest successively, have occupied and held possession of the said grant and tract of land, claiming the whole thereof under the said grant, patent, and conveyances (with the exception aforesaid) continuously from the date of delivery of juridical possession thereof by the Mexican government in A.D. 1843 to the present time, save in so far as they have from time to time been interfered with by the unlawful acts of said defendants and others in like situation as to portions thereof;' that the defendants 'have lately wrongfully, unlawfully, and without the permission of your orator entered upon and taken possession of certain portions of the said lands of your orator not heretofore conveyed to any other party under whom the said defendants, or any of them, claim any right thereto, and still hold and maintain possession thereof, and have excluded, and still do exclude, your orator, and those claiming under it, from occupying and enjoying the same, and have proceeded to mine, remove, and appropriate to their own use the precious and valuable minerals, ores, and coal in and upon said lands; to cut remove, and use the trees and timber, grass and hay, growing thereon; * * * that the said acts of said defendants are not committed upon any portion of said grant and tract of land claimed or held by them, or any of them, under any grant from the government of Mexico, or under any conveyance or license from your orator, or any of its predecessors in interest, but solely on the pretended ground that said grant is public domain of the United States, and that they have the right to enter the same as such;' that 'the damages resulting from the said unlawful acts of the said defendants are of such a nature as to be incapable of computation and adjudication at law, and as to require, if sued for at law, a multiplicity of suits, at various and successive times, against various parties, as to the same subject-matter, and founded upon the same claim, right, and title, and at great cost, expense, and vexation to your orator, and that your orator will therefore sustain irreparable loss and damage by means of the said repeated, continuous, and various acts and trespasses, unless the same are restrained by the order of this honorable court; * * * that the claims of the said defendants, although separate and different as between themselves, are all subordinate to your orator's single title, and to its rights, and are assertions of claims which cast a cloud upon your orator's possession and title, and prevent your orator from the peaceable enjoyment of the fruits of its said ownership; that the right, title, and claim of your orator is single, general, and exclusive against all of said defendants, and that such right and title cannot be quieted at law by one or two actions, but numerous suits would be required, involving the same question, wherein each suit would determine such right only between your orator and the defendant in that suit, thereby making great and unnecessary costs, expense, and vexation, both to your orator and said defendants. ' The bill prayed for a decree quieting complainant's title, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from mining or from committing other acts of trespass upon the lands. The defendants entered their appearance to the suit, and filed an answer and cross bill. On the 21st day of June, 1890, the following stipulation was entered into between the parties to the suit:

'It is stipulated and agreed that the above-entitled cause may be continued until after the appeal in the case of Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., No. 2365 on the docket of this court, has been determined by the supreme court of the United States, and, in the event that the judgment of the circuit court in the aforesaid case is reversed by the supreme court of the United States, then this case...