Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-03-04
U. S. LAND COURT.
Important Opinion in the Colorado
Grant Case Handed Down this
Morning,
Points Which Shall Govern in Draw.
ing Petitions -EDnecessary to
Name All Claimants.

In the matter of j. NJ. G. Chavez land
other claimants OF the Colorado land
grant," whose petition was filed in the u
S. court of private land claims on We'd
nesdav and demurred to by the U. S.
attorney, the court, by Chief Justice
Reed, this morning rendered the follow
ing opinion:
This is a proceeding under the Sth sec
ton of the act approved March 3, 1891,
creating this court, in which plaintiff
seeks the confirmation of grant of land,
alleged to have been made by the COVER
nor general OF Mexico, to Rosalia Valdez
and others, on the 25th day of June,
1888.
A demurrer has been interposed by the
attorney for the United States, which, in
general terms raises the question as to
the sufficency of the allegations OF the
petition. A number of special assign
ments are also made, the first of which IL,
that there is defect of parties.
The petition alleges that the grantees
under the grant were placed in possession
of the land the portions OF which fit for
cultivation, were subsequently, divided by
competent authority, among them, and
their legal representatives, of whom plain
tiff is one, are now in possession, and that
there are no known adverse claims.
The petition Is entitled, "The owners
of the Plaza Colorado grant, plaintiffs, vs..
the United States" 1t recites that the
action is brought by Jose NJ. G. Chaves
and the other owners of the grant, and 1t
is signed by Mr.. Chavez for himself and
the other owners; but none of the other
parties are named in the pleading, or do
they otherwise appear as parties to the
action.
If the fact that the parties are in pos
: > session OF portions of the land covered by
n the grant makes them necessary parties
i6 to the proceeding, it must be admit
80 ted THAT the pleading is insufficient,
W for they are in no manner subjected to the
= jurisdiction of the court, and would not be
~ bound by any judgement or decree it
might render. But we are OF the opinion,
. that while they may be proper parties to
the proceeding, they are not necessary
parties to it. 1t is true that the 9Th section
provides, that, "the name or names OF
any person or persons in possession OF (the
land or claiming the same, otherwise than
by leave or permission Of the petitioner, y
shall be stated in the petition. And this
provision standing alone would seem to
require that all persons in possession Of
any portion of the land, should be named
whether they were asserting right adj
I verse to that claimed by the petitioner, OF
were claiming under the same grant al
legged by him. The only possible object
however, in naming them in the petition
would be to make the N parties to the pro
ceeding. But if they are to be made par
ties, they must, unless they voluntarily
Join as plaintiffs, be served with process
and the subsequent provisions of the sec
ton provide only, tor the service OF pro
cess upon the attorney for the United
States, and upon adverse claimants ant
possessors. So that when the two provl
sions are construed together, as unde
familiar rules of construction they mus
be, it is clear we think, that the act con
templates that only such persons IN pos
session as are asserting an adverse RICH
or interest, are necessary parties to thu
proceeding.
The plaintiff, Chavez, alleges, in effect
that he is an owner OF portion of tn
tract granted. In other words, and in TIL
language of the Sth section, he is claiming
lands under title derived from the Span
ish government, that was complete ant
perfect at the date when the United State
acquired sovereignty, ETC., and we know
of no reason why he may not prosecute
his claim in his own name and right, in
= dependent of other parties, who may hav
;, similar right to other portions of TIN
4. land covered by the same grant. If tn
Others in possession choose to unite will
IA him in prosecuting the claim, they doubt
!" less have the right to do 30, otherwise tn
So reference to them in the petition as par
20 ties to the action may he treated as mer
" surplusage.
}" Another objection to the petition speci
; fled by the demurrer is that it does nc
D comply with the first rule of practice
}" This objection is sustained. The require
20 ment OF the rule that the cause shall b
~ entitled in the name OF the claimant q
- plaintiff against the United States, as de
x fendant, was adopted as matter of con
~ VeDleHC6 Ill Tue hetplnb VI oui ioSoiuo
}" 1t is reasonable and easily complied with
!" and will be enforced in all cases.
ia Another ground of the demurrer is that
neither the particular form of the allege'
- grant nor its substance is stated in tn
petition. This ground of demurrer is ais
sustained. The 9th section OF the act
provides that the petitioner shall 'se
forth fully the nature of their aims t.
the lands, and particularly state the dat
and form of the grant, concession or orde
of survey under which they claim"
=, While the nature of the plaintiff g CLAIM
Aii is, perhaps, sufficiently stated in thu
petition, no attempt has been made t.
ia state its form; but it ia alleged that thu
y original grant papers are on file in TIT
office of the surveyor general OF this ter
OF rtory, and We are asked to send for them
Ii and make them part of the petition. Blu
this does not meet the requirements o
o, the statute, or rules of pleading. The
requirements of the statute will best be
complied with by embodyng in or at
tachlng to the petition, as an exhibit, 8
-