Algodones Land & Town Co. v. Frank
| Decision Date | 04 August 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 1743.,1743. |
| Citation | 21 N.M. 82,153 P. 1032 |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALGODONES LAND & TOWN CO.v.FRANK ET AL. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The doctrine of laches is not ordinarily applicable to defeat a stale claim unless it would be inequitable to allow the party to maintain the claim, and the mere lapse of time is not sufficient to require the application of the doctrine.
Where both parties to a transaction have full knowledge of all the facts, there can be no estoppel by conduct.
Appeal from District Court, Sandoval County; Raynolds, Judge.
Action by the Algodones Land & Town Company against A. J. Frank and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Where both parties to a transaction have full knowledge of all the facts, there can be no estoppel by conduct.
Edward A. Mann and John Venable, both of Albuquerque, for appellants.
J. B. Burg and Vigil & Jemison, both of Albuquerque, for appellee.
On July 17, 1900, the plaintiff, appellee, and the defendant A. J. Frank entered into a contract in writing whereby the said defendant agreed to construct upon certain lands described in the complaint, a modern smelting plant for the reduction and refining of precious mineral ores, which smelter was to be of certain prescribed dimensions and with certain prescribed equipment, within a period of six months from the date of the said agreement, and the plaintiff agreed that in consideration of the construction upon said lands of the said smelter to make a conveyance to the said defendant of the said land, which was accordingly done on the same day. The deed mentioned was recorded on the 19th day of July, 1900, by the said defendant, and the contract was likewise recorded on October, 13, 1904. The deed was an ordinary warranty deed and contained no conditions and made no reference to this contract. The contract refers to the deed and declares that the same is made upon the express condition that it shall not remain operative or binding unless the said defendant shall, within six months after the date of the contract, construct the said smelter upon the said land, and that in case the said defendant fails and refuses to so construct the said smelter, that the said deed shall remain inoperative and void after the 20th day of January, 1901, and the said land should revert to and remain the property of the plaintiff. On September 20, 1900, the said defendant Frank conveyed to the defendant the New Mexico Smelting & Refining Company all of the land conveyed to him by the deed from the plaintiff. The defendant the New Mexico Smelting & Refining Company, in January, 1903, conveyed to most of the other defendants certain lots and blocks of the said land which are specified in the complaint. The defendant the New Mexico Smelting & Refining Company executed a deed of trust or mortgage in favor of the defendant the People's Trust Company, under date of June 1, 1901, upon certain lots, blocks, and parcels of the lands conveyed by plaintiff to the defendant Frank. The defendant the New Mexico Smelting & Refining Company, by deed dated December 21, 1905, conveyed to the defendant Ernest Mysenburg all of the said lands and premises except those theretofore conveyed to others of the defendants as hereinbefore mentioned. The defendant A. J. Frank failed to perform any of the conditions of the said contract in writing within the said six months specified in said contract, or at all, whereupon it is alleged the plaintiff entered and took possession of all of the land described in the complaint and continued so in possession down to the time of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff prayed for a decree, declaring it to be the owner of the said lands and premises, and that the defendants be barred and estopped from having or claiming any right or title to the said lands and premises adverse to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff's title thereto be quieted and set at rest.
The defendants filed a joint answer in which they allege two facts upon which they rely by way of defense. The first is that on November 19, 1900, the plaintiff and the defendant A. J. Frank made and entered into a new and complete contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to release the said defendant Frank from the building of the smelter set forth and referred to in the original contract, and agreed to sell the land described in plaintiff's deed to the said Frank for and in consideration of the sum of $600, which said sum was duly paid to the plaintiff at that time. This contract was alleged to be an oral contract and made between the plaintiff acting by its president, R. G. Balcomb, but it is alleged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...alteration prior to delivery of the escrow deed. In so concluding, I am not unmindful of our statement in Algodones Land Company v. Frank, 21 N.M. 82, 153 P. 1032, 1034, that “mere lapse of time gives no ground for the application of the doctrine” of laches. But here we have something more-......
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...alteration prior to delivery of the escrow deed. In so concluding, I am not unmindful of our statement in Algodones Land Company v. Frank, 21 N.M. 82, 153 P. 1032, 1034, that "mere lapse of time gives no ground for the application of the doctrine" of laches. But here we have something more-......
-
Modisette v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co.
...Winn v. Shugart, 112 F.2d 617 (10th Cir. 1940); Borserine v. Maryland Cas. Co., 112 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1940); Algodones Land & Town Co. v. Frank, 21 N.M. 82, 153 P. 1032; 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver § 32 at 636; 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 66 at It appears from the record that another policy......
-
Trujillo v. Padilla
...is not necessarily a matter of time, but is a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced. Algodones Land & Town Co. v. Frank, 21 N.M. 82, 153 P. 1032; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 163 F.2d 178 (10th Cir. 1947); and Sidebotham v. Robison, supra. No inequities cause......