Manby v. Voorhees

• Decision Date: 23 December 1921
• Docket Number: 2022.
• Citation: 203 P. 543,27 N.M. 511,1921 -NMSC- 107
• Parties: MANBY ET AL. v. VOORHEES ET AL.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

203 P. 543

27 N.M. 511, 1921 -NMSC- 107

MANBY ET AL. v. VOORHEES ET AL.

No. 2022.

Supreme Court of New Mexico

December 23, 1921

Syllabus by the Court.

While findings of a referee and of the trial court will not be disturbed where they are supported by substantial evidence they are subject to review in this court when not so supported.

The act of February 1, 1858, appearing in Comp. Laws 1865, as chapter 73, §§ 1, 2, and as sections 1880,1881,Comp. Laws 1884 interpreted, and held thereunder that an uninterrupted occupancy of land adverse to the true owner, by one who has no title, not only defeated the title of the true owner, but also vested in such occupant a complete title.

Recital of facts concerning the tax title involved.

An assessment of land as "1649 acres at 33 1/3," without further description, is held to be an insufficient description to serve to identify the land within the requirement of section 25, chapter 22,Laws 1899.

Such defect in description is held to be a jurisdictional defect, and not avoided by the curative provisions of section 25, chapter 22,Laws 1899.

A tax sale certificate, issued by a county collector, covering an alleged tax sale by his predecessor in office, about which he has no knowledge, is void, and furnishes no basis for a subsequent tax deed.

The assessment of land in the name of a deceased person is a defect which is cured by the statute above cited.

Appeal from District Court, Taos County; Leib, Judge.

Action by A. R. Manby and others against A. C. Voorhees and others.Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.Reversed and remanded with directions.

A. C Voorhees, of Raton, for appellants.

N. B. Laughlin, of Santa Fé, for appellees.

PARKER J.

The appellee, A. R. Manby, brought suit in the district court for Taos county against Daniel Martinez and others to quiet title to the Antonio Martinez land grant.From a judgment in his favor the persons hereinafter named as appellants have perfected this appeal.

The complaint of appellee Manby alleged in substance that the lands within the Antonio Martinez grant were granted by Spanish authority in 1716 to Antonio Martinez and his heirs and assigns; that it was confirmed in 1892, and patent therefor was issued by the United States in 1897; that appellee is the owner in fee simple of more than an undivided three-fourths interest in said grant; that defendants are the owners in fee simple of a fraction less than a one-fourth undivided interest in said grant, but as to the extent of the respective undivided interests of each defendantthe appellee has no knowledge.The complainant further alleged that many of the named defendants, and other persons, resided upon the grant, and had used and occupied divers and sundry tracts therein allotted and segregated from the body of the estate or common lands of the grant, and that he did not desire to molest or disturb said persons, but desired the same set off by the court to the various owners shown to be entitled thereto by the proofs to be submitted in the case.

The appellant, Voorhees, filed an answer and cross-complaint.The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, except with respect to the confirmation of the grant and the ownership in fee by defendants of certain segregated tracts within the grant.By way of cross-billhe alleged, among other things:

"The defendant herein owns and holds the title in fee simple, and is in actual possession of that certain tract of land lying and being within the exterior boundary lines of the said Antonio Martinez land grant * * * and the said defendant, through his ancestors, their ancestors and predecessors in title, have occupied, held, and possessed the same for a period of more than 10 years prior to the filing of the said complaint * * * herein and the commencement of this action, and have held and occupied and possessed said tracts of land by virtue of conveyances, devises, and other assurances purporting to convey an estate, in such land in fee simple."

Here follows a description by metes and bounds of the land claimed.

The answer of the appellee Manby to this part of the cross-complaint alleges that the appellee denied that the said defendant either owns or holds the title in fee simple or otherwise, or that he is in actual possession of the lands and premises attempted to be described and set forth in paragraph 4 of his said cross-complaint, and further denied on information and belief that the said defendant, A. C. Voorhees, in himself, through or by his grantors and predecessors, has occupied, held, or possessed the said land for a period of more than 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint in this cause, and the commencement of this suit, or that the said defendant has occupied or possessed said tract of land, or any part thereof, under any conveyance purporting to convey the estate thereof in fee simple or otherwise.

The evidence was taken before a referee, who found that the proof failed to show that Jose R. Vigil or the Hadleys, predecessors in title of the appellant Voorhees, ever took possession of or exercised any control over the Hadley tract in any way whatsoever; that the land was vacant sagebrush land, and that possession thereof had always been in the heirs, successors, and assigns of Antonio Martinez, the original grantee of the grant.The trial court approved this finding of the referee, and one of the principal contentions in the case is that the referee and the court both erred in making this finding.

1.In approaching a discussion of the proposition involved, we will assume of course that if there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting the findings of the referee and of the courtthey will not be disturbed.We have carefully examined the record, however, and find that both the referee and the trial court were clearly in error in making this finding, and we conclude that the error intervened by reason of the confusion in the mind of the referee and the court as to the period of time within which the adverse possession of appellant's predecessors in title was maintained.The evidence introduced in behalf of appellant Voorhees shows without contradiction that Vigil, one of his predecessors in title, maintained exclusive possession of this land from about 1861 or 1862 to about 1885 or 1887.The testimony introduced on behalf of appellee in regard to possession of this land was directed to a time subsequent to 1885 or 1887.Thus it appears from the testimony of Gabina Duran de Vigil, widow of appellant's predecessor in title, that she married Vigil about 1861.The land was purchased by Vigil from his brothers, his brother-in-law, and his mother.The year of Vigil's death he planted the land to crops.Vigil was in possession from 1881 until he sold the land.In 1881he had deeds for the property.Witness and Vigil lived both at Taos and at Desmontes on the land, in a house which in 1881 appeared to be rather new.When the witness and Vigil were married he showed her deeds for the land, as well as the boundaries of the land, which included the tract in question.On cross-examination witness said she and Vigil moved each summer to the land in controversy, and cultivated it, and when they were not on the land they had tenants there.The land was unfenced.Water for irrigation purposes came from Arroyo Hondo.The house was near the Canyon Sandias, and contained two rooms and a hall.

The witness McClure testified that he purchased part of the land from Vigil in 1894 and 1895.The land was surveyed in 1887, at which time witness went around most of the tract with Vigil.Vigil obtained most of the land by purchase.Vigil told witness that he(Vigil) had deeds for the property.In 1877 Vigil was in possession of the land either through himself or his tenants.Vigil continued in that possession until 1896.Witness was not personally acquainted with the land in 1877.When he first saw the house on the land it was in ruins.On cross-examination he said Vigil died in 1898.Some of the Hadley tract was cultivated in small patches (date not given); it was unfenced.Vigil told the witness that the ditch coming from out of the Arroyo Hondo, and from which the land was irrigated, he(Vigil) saw built about 1809, when he was a very small boy herding sheep.Witness first saw the house in 1888, and it was in ruins then.No improvements on the land since 1887, and no one has lived on it since that time.In 1898 witness permitted Vigil to farm his (witness's) part of the land, and Vigil pitched his tent on the land preparatory to farming it, but died before the seed had been sown.

Vicente Mares testified that he knew Vigil from about 1865 to his death.In 1874 the witness passed the Vigil house and saw him there farming the land.The house looked old at that time.

F. A. Gallegos testified that he knew that Vigil claimed the land in 1881.At that time the house upon the land was old.

Jose M. Santisteven testified that he knew Jose R. Vigil, and that he claimed the land in dispute.The father of the witness told him that Vigil used to live at Desmontes, but witness never saw Vigil there.There was a house and some corrals on the land about 1881, at which time such improvements were old.The land was surveyed in 1888.Vigil said the land was 1,000 varas wide, running from Desmontes to Rio Seco, but that it did not run through the Rio Seco creek at all.For 15 or 20 years the witness saw tenants of Vigil cultivating the land on shares for Vigil (prior to 1888).On cross-examination he said he knew only by hearsay that people were planting the land for Vigil on shares.

Donaciano Duran testified that he knew that Vigil claimed the land for more than 30 years.Saw Vigil on the land.When asked how...