Norment v. Turley.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 2991.,2991. |
| Citation | 31 N.M. 400,246 P. 748 |
| Parties | NORMENTv.TURLEY. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Laws of a sister state presumed, in the absence of contrary pleading or proof, to be same as laws of this state.
Complaint in suit for breach of covenant of warranty in deed for lands in another state is sufficient as against demurrer, if it states a cause of action under the laws of this state.
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Hickey, Judge.
Action by James W. Norment against Jay Turley for breach of covenant in a deed. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
The courts in the absence of pleadings and proof as to what the laws of a sister state are, will assume that the law prevailing in the foreign state is the same as the law of the forum.
Geo. C. Taylor, of Albuquerque, for appellant.
F. W. Clancy, of Santa Fé, for appellee.
Appellant (plaintiff below) filed his amended complaint, alleging that appellee (defendant below), for a consideration of $5,000, executed and delivered to appellant a conveyance for certain lands situated in the state of Florida, copy of which conveyance was attached to the amended complaint, and contains this covenant:
“The parties of the first part hereby warrants the title to the above described lands and will defend the same forever.”
The amended complaint further alleged that thereafter appellant was evicted from said lands under a decree of a circuit court of chancery in the state of Florida, copy of which is attached to the amended complaint, and which decree quieted the title of one George Broadhurst as against the appellant, and adjudged that any claim made by the appellant was null and void. The prayer was for damages in the sum of $5,000.
A demurrer was filed upon the following grounds:
“(1) The said amended complaint is founded upon an alleged covenant in a deed which upon its face shows that the land therein described is situate in the state of Florida, and there is no allegation in said amended complaint of the law of that state, by which alone the said deed and covenant are to be construed and given effect.
(2) The said amended complaint attempts to set up an eviction of plaintiff from the lands described in said deed, by means of a judgment of a court in the state of Florida, but contains no allegation of the law of that state upon which said judgment is founded, nor of any law of that state as to the effect of such judgment.
(3) The said amended complaint upon its face shows that it is filed more than six years after the alleged cause of action, if any, accrued and is therefore barred by the statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boswell v. Rio De Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 6804
...the law of a sister state is presumed to be the same as the law of the forum. Carron v. Abounador, 28 N.M. 491, 214 P. 772; Norment v. Turley, 31 N.M. 400, 246 P. 748. However, we are cognizant of our subsequent Rule of Civil Procedure 44(d) (Sec. 21-1-1(44) N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp.) which reads......
-
Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co.
...of this state, and that this is so irrespective of whether the law of this state be statutory or common law, and cites Norment v. Turley, 31 N. M. 400, 246 P. 748, and Carron v. Abounador, 28 N. M. 491, 214 P. 772. Assuming, but not conceding, that the cases cited go as far as appellant ass......