Dickerson v. Montoya, 4487.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 4487.,4487. |
| Citation | 100 P.2d 904,44 N.M. 207 |
| Parties | DICKERSON et al.v.MONTOYA et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court Dona Ana County; Numa C. Frenger, Judge.
Action to quiet title by Hale Dickerson and others against Jose Montoya and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
In disposing of a motion for judgment on the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, all portions of testimony and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom which tend to prove plaintiff's case must be accepted as true and all conflicts and all evidence which tend to weaken or disprove it must be disregarded.
R. R. Posey, of Las Cruces, for appellants.
W. C. Whatley, of Las Cruces, for appellees.
This action was brought to quiet title to certain real estate situated in the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico. At the close of plaintiffs' (appellants') testimony the court sustained defendants' (appellees') motion for judgment upon the ground that there was not substantial evidence introduced to sustain their case, and judgment of dismissal was entered, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
To establish plaintiffs' title they introduced a tax deed in which the description of the property conveyed was as follows: “*** situated in School District No. 2 in the County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico, to-wit:
“1 Lot on Las Cruces Avenue Blk 52 O. T. S.
It is stated in the tax deed that the property had been assessed as that of the Estate of Josefina M. Montoya.
[1][2] It may be assumed that the letters N, W, S, and E in this description indicate north, west, south and east, and that the names of the persons indicate the owners of property bounding the lot conveyed by the tax deed. The question is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to identify the property conveyed by the tax deed as being that described in the complaint, and in determining this we must accept as true all portions of the testimony and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom which tended to prove plaintiffs' case, and disregard all conflicts and all evidence which tended to weaken or disprove it. This is the rule in disposing of a motion for judgment at the conclusion of plaintiffs' testimony. Sandoval County Board of Education v. Young, 43 N.M. 397, 94 P.2d 508.
Plaintiffs established, by substantial evidence, that the lot described in the complaint was the identical property described in a deed to Josefina M. Montoya, which the defendants claimed to own, as follows:
“House and lot within precinct No. 20, Town of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and about 250 yards Easterly from the Catholic Church, in said precinct, town and county and with the following measurements, to-wit:
“Commencing at the NW corner of this lot and thence Easterly, on the North seventy-four (74) feet, bounded by street which runs East and West, North of the Catholic Church; thence South, on the East, one hundred and eight (108) feet, bounded by Patricio Vallejos the grantor herein; thence west, on the south seventy-five (75) feet, bounded by estate of Manuel Lucero; thence North, on the west one hundred and six feet (106) bounded by Francisca Quintana, to the place of beginning.”
The plaintiffs introduced a plat from an abstract of block 52 of the Old Town Site of Las Cruces, on which the name of Josefina M. Montoya appears, apparently as the owner of a lot which faces a street on the north and otherwise is bounded as appears from the deed to Josefina M. Montoya mentioned in this opinion. The compiler of that abstract testified that his records did not show that Josefina M. Montoya or her estate owned any land in the City of Las Cruces, or Dona Ana County, except the tract described as in the City of Las Cruces. It was not shown that his records were correct or complete, either as to the City of Las Cruces or Dona Ana County, nor even of what such records consisted.
It thus appears that the tax deed conveys a lot assessed in the name of Josefina M. Montoya in Block 52 of an unnamed town in School District No. 2 of Dona Ana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ALLEN v. ALLEN
...supporting the judgment, and reject the opposing or conflicting testimony.' See, also, to the same effect, the cases of Dickerson v. Montoya, 44 N.M. 207, 100 P.2d 904; Williams v. Engler, 46 N.M. 454, 131 P.2d 267, and Sundt v. Tobin Quarries, 50 N.M. 254, 175 P.2d 684, 169 A.L.R. 586. An ......
-
Perkins v. Drury
...testimony in testing the substantial character of the evidence. City of Roswell v. Hall, 45 N.M. 116, 112 P.2d 505; Dickerson v. Montoya, 44 N.M. 207, 100 P.2d 904; Williams v. Engler, 46 N.M. 454, 131 P.2d 267; Sundt v. Tobin Quarries, 50 N.M. 254, 175 P.2d 684, 169 A.L.R. There is little ......
-
In re Garcia's Estate.Montoya v. Dunlap
...[1] Counsel for the appellant invoke against appellees the rule governing upon a demurrer to the evidence as stated in Dickerson v. Montoya, 44 N.M. 207, 100 P. 2d 904, and insist the evidence disclosed a prima facie case, rendering it error for the trial court to sustain the motion to dism......
-
Apodaca v. Allison & Haney
...citations seem unnecessary in support thereof. Nevertheless, see, City of Roswell v. Hall, 45 N.M. 116, 112 P.2d 505; Dickerson v. Montoya, 44 N.M. 207, 100 P.2d 904; Williams v. Engler, 46 N.M. 454, 131 P.2d 267; Sundt v. Tobin Quarries, 50 N.M. 254, 175 P.2d 684, 169 A.L.R. 586. The act h......