Jones v. Anderson, 8914
| Docket Nº | No. 8914 |
| Citation | 467 P.2d 995, 81 N.M. 423, 1970 NMSC 44 |
| Case Date | March 16, 1970 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
This action was commenced in the District Court of Sierra County, New Mexico, to determine the rights to water claimed by plaintiffs and defendants, and to determine if any water rights had been forfeited.
The issues were limited to the surface water rights of the Ladder Ranch. After trial, the court awarded 60 acres of water rights to defendant Ladder. Plaintiffs appeal. Defendant Ladder cross-appealed, subsequently withdrawing the cross-appeal. The intervenor State Engineer has not participated in this appeal. The parties will be designated as they appeared in the trial court.
The only issue for this court to determine is whether, as contended by plaintiffs, the water rights appurtenant to the places of Saledon Chavez, Ben Chavez and Opgenorth, were forfeited by nonuse by the present owners or their predecessors.
After a careful review of the record and findings of fact made by the trial court, we hold there was no forfeiture by nonuse. This court has previously held that § 75--5--26, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., is a forfeiture statute for nonuse of water rights under certain circumstances. State ex rel. Reynolds v. South Springs Co., 80 N.M. 144, 452 P.2d 478 (1969).
Plaintiffs contend that the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not have support in the evidence. The trial court found by its finding No. XII(d), (e) and (f), that 'Defendant Robert O. Anderson and his predecessors in title have at all pertinent times applied the surface waters of the Las Animas Creek to beneficial use' upon the lands in question.
We are unable to agree with plaintiffs' contentions. The burden of proving failure to irrigate was on the plaintiffs. They did not sustain this burden. The record reveals ample support for the court's findings of fact. We have repeatedly held that, if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the evidence, they will not be disturbed on appeal. State ex rel. Reynolds v. South Springs Co., supra; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Wylie, 1066
...will not review the facts, weigh them and consider inferences contrary to those reasonably drawn by the trial court. Jones v. Anderson, 81 N.M. 423, 467 P.2d 995 (1970); Kerr v. Schwartz, 82 N.M. 63, 475 P.2d 457 (2) Contributory negligence of decedent. Defendants advance a negligence per s......
-
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. W. S. Ranch Co., 8842
...we must nevertheless conclude that in this instance no one has suffered. Kaiser had the right under the facts of this case to condemn[81 NM 423] Page 995 the right of way they occupied for the purpose for which it was taken, and may be held liable for damages to the owner only in an inverse......
-
Hess Corp.. v. N.M. Taxation, 28,967.
...the credibility of the witnesses, reconcile inconsistent or contradictory statements, and say where the truth lies.” Jones v. Anderson, 81 N.M. 423, 424, 467 P.2d 995, 996 (1970). The district court was provided conflicting expert testimony and a range of possible appropriate allocations. T......
-
Estrada v. Cuaron, 3578
...of the layman; and the jury should have been allowed to weigh their conflicting evidence with that of defendant's. Jones v. Anderson, 81 N.M. 423, 467 P.2d 995 The trial court was in error in excluding the tendered evidence by plaintiff's two witnesses. The case is reversed and remanded for......