Solomon v. Yrisarri.

• Decision Date: 24 September 1898
• Citation: 9 N.M. 480,54 P. 752
• Parties: SOLOMONv.YRISARRI.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

9 N.M. 480

54 P. 752

SOLOMON

v.YRISARRI.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Sept. 24, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where there is no substantial conflict in the evidence adduced by the parties plaintiff and defendant, the court may direct a verdict.

2. Where one party wholly fails to make proof of the essential elements necessary to sustain his side of the contention in a suit, and the adverse party has made a prima facie case, the court should direct a verdict for the adverse party.

3. When a party fails to make his proof in a trial, requests for special findings of the jury are properly refused by the court.

4. Open, notorious, and adverse possession by a claimant to real estate for the statutory period, either by himself or by those through or under whom he held, ripens into a perfect title.

5. That paper writings may constitute a foundation for title or a link in a chain of title, they must be executed according to the laws in force at the time of their execution.

Error to district court, Bernalillo county; before Justice N. C. Collier.

Ejectment by Emilia Yrisarri against John Solomon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Where a party fails to make his proof in a trial, requests for special findings of the jury are properly refused by the court.

Warren, Fergusson & Gillet, for plaintiff in in error.

William D. Lee, for defendant in error.

LELAND, J.

This cause comes into this court on error to the district court of Bernaillo county. Plaintiff in error makes the following assignments of error, to wit: (1) “The evidence being conflicting, the court below erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff.” (2) “The trial court erred in deciding that there was sufficient evidence to entitle plaintiff below to recover in this cause.” (3) “The court erred in refusing to submit to the jury in this cause the special findings asked for by defendant below.” (4) “The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial of this cause.” (5) “The court erred in allowing plaintiff below to recover the whole of the land in litigation.”

As to the first assignment of error, we are of the opinion that, when there is not a “substantial” conflict in the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the court is fully warranted in directing a verdict. If the evidence adduced by a party to a suit is of such a character that, should the party obtain a verdict, the court would set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial, the court surely has a right to anticipate its own action by directing a verdict. The conflict in the evidence in this case is not of such character as to cause the case to fall within the rule laid down in Chaves v. Chaves, 3 N. M. 300, 5 Pac. 331.

As to the second assignment of error, the record discloses that this is an action in ejectment, and that both plaintiff in error and defendant in error claim the realty in dispute from one common source of title; and, the plaintiff below having proved a prima facie good title from this common source to the present, by the fixed and well-settled rules of the law of evidence, and the defendant below having failed to show any such title, the court, being the sale judge of the law in this case, had a right, under such state of facts, to decide upon the sufficiency of the evidence, and direct a verdict in favor of ...