Case Title: King v. Brown

Citation: 284 P.2d 214, 59 N.M. 325

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1955-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
284 P.2d 214 (1955) 59 N.M. 325 Clyde KING and H.D. Payne, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Paul BROWN and Marie Brown, Defendants-Appellants. No. 5873. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 25, 1955. P.H. Dunleavy, Albuquerque, for appellants. McAtee & Toulouse, Albuquerque, for appellees. LUJAN, Justice. This suit was for injunction to enjoin and restrain the defendants (appellants) from obstructing a certain road located in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. The judgment was in favor of plaintiffs (appellees) hence this appeal. The road is situated on land which was public domain and was established prior to the time James T. Bowling, patentee, and his successors in interest and title acquired the land, so we are dealing with the prescriptive right that accrued and ripened into title upon open public land of the United States while the land retained that character. The court found: Based upon the above findings of fact the court concluded as a matter of law: The defendants did not object or except to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge. However, they did submit requested findings of fact and conclusions of law which were refused by the court. Fourteen errors are assigned which are argued under one point, as follows: It would serve no good purpose to set out the evidence in support of the above findings of the trial court. Suffice it to say that there is substantial evidence to sustain the same and they will remain undisturbed. As to the law, this case is controlled by our decision in Wilson v. Williams, 43 N.M. 173, 87 P.2d 683, where the factual situation was similar to the case at bar. There we held that when a prescriptive right accrued and ripened into title upon public lands of the United States while the land retained that character, the person acquiring such land subsequent to the establishment of a road thereon took it subject to the public easement of a right of way on such land, although the same was never established by public authorities, and we reaffirm that holding. See, also, Murray v. City of Butte, 7 Mont. 61, 14 P. 656; Sprague v. Stead, 56 Colo. 538, 139 P. 544, *216 and Streeter v. Stalnaker, 61 Neb. 205, 85 N.W. 47. The court did not err in refusing to adopt defendants' requested findings of fact and conclusions of law since they were diametrically opposed to those made by the court. Guzman v. Avila, 58 N.M. 43, 265 P.2d 363. The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER and McGHEE, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., concurring.