Abetya v. Tafoya

• Decision Date: 03 September 1920
• Docket Number: No. 2450.,2450.
• Citation: 192 P. 481,26 N.M. 346
• Parties: ABETYA ET AL.v.TAFOYA ET AL.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

26 N.M. 346

192 P. 481

ABETYA ET AL.

v.TAFOYA ET AL.

No. 2450.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 3, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a suit to quiet title to real estate, the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own right, and not on the weakness of his adversary's claim.

Appeal from District Court, Mora County; Laehy, Judge.

Action by Agapito Abetya, Jr., and another against Damacio Tafoya, etc., and others. Judgment for defendants, dismissing the complaint, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

In a suit to quiet title to real estate, the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own right, and not on the weakness of his adversary's claim.

Elmer E. Veeder, of Las Vegas, for appellants.

S. B. Davis, Jr., W. J. Lucas, and Chas. W. G. Ward, all of East Las Vegas, for appellees.

ROBERTS, J.

This action was instituted in the court below by appellants against appellees to quiet their title to a tract of land upon which was situated a lake, called “El Murphy,” used for irrigation purposes. Appellees answered, denying title in appellants, and alleged that the two corporations had title to the land, and asked affirmative relief in that their title be quieted. Issues were framed, and appellants introduced their evidence and rested. Appellees then moved for judgment on the ground that appellants had failed to show title, and waived their right to affirmative relief. The court made findings of fact, finding that appellants had failed to show title, and entered judgment for appellees, dismissing the complaint.

In this court appellants raised several questions, which in our view of the case are wholly immaterial, among which are that the appellees, being community acequias, have no power to hold title to the real estate, or that title to the same cannot be vested in the commissioners of such acequias.

It appears from the evidence that the commissioners of the two acequias had been using the lake called “El Murphy” for a number of years for the storage of water; that there was a time during this period when the dam was washed out, when it was questionable whether any use had been made of the reservoir site for storage purposes, but this question, as well as others raised, is of no consequence, because the court found that appellants had failed to show that they had title to the land in question on which the lake was situated.

“It is a rule of general application that the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own right, and not on the weakness of his adversary's claim.” 5 R. C. L. 675.

“To maintain the action to quiet title or remove cloud thereon, plaintiff must have a good and valid title, legal or equitable, or as held in few jurisdictions a legal and equitable title connected with possession to the land in...