Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1898-08-24
TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT.
Five Opinions Handed Down -Important
Decision Regarding Mineral Lands
Within Grants Claimed in

New Mexico.
Supreme court met this morning at
o o'clock, with Chief Justice Mills and
Associate Justices McFie, Parker,
yrumpacker and Leland present.
The opinions handed down on yester-
were in cases Nos. 7al, 731, TIC,
and re, as follows:
No. 721, the Denver & Rio Grande R.
Co., plaintiffs in error, VS.. The Unit
I'd States, defendant in error, error to
the lst Judicial District court, and No.
73l, The United States, plaintiff in error,
VS.. The Denver & Rio Grande r. r. Co.,
defendant in error, error to the LIST Ju-
dicial District court, the court handed
down a decision reversing the Judgment
of the lower court, and remanded the
cases to the court below with instruc-
tions to grant a new trial. The opinion,
was handed down by Chief JUS
tice Mills and %concurred in by the asso-
ciate justices, reads partly: The above
entitled causes were considered and heard
as one in this coart. They grow out of
IL SUN III uloNCl olouShu "a eiC . J""'
cial district of this territory by the
United States against the Denver Il Ric
Grande Railroad company to recover
ST, 900 alleged damages for the CONVEX
sion of certain timber and railroad ties
taken from the public lands by the de-
PENDANT. Both sides sued out writs OF
error alleging on the II side that nc
Judgment for any amount should have
been given, and upon the other that II
was too small. No evidence was taken
in the trial before the lower court as
the case vas submitted entirely upon q
stipulation and the rulings thereon
In the lower court it was ~adjndged thai
the United States do have and recover
the sum of STA from the defendan'
railroad company together with thu
costs of the suit. Wolcott & Vale ant
f. L. Bartlett for defendant and A. A
Jones for the United States.
In EAST No. TIC, Henry Lockhart
plaintiff in error, VS.. j. q. Wills ct al.
defendants in error, error to the distric
court of Bernalillo county, an opinlo
was handed down by Associate Justlc
Parker, which was %concurred In b
Chief Justice Mills and Associate jus
tees McFie and Crumpacker, Associat
Justice Leland not sitting in the case
affirming the judgment of the lowe
court, the same being in favor of j. 4
Wills ct al. This suit was brought i
the lower court to eject the defendant
from the possession of certain mimi
property, and the Supreme court i
rendering it's decision prepared the TO
lowing syllabus:
LANDS embraced within the bour
diaries of a Mexican or Spanish grant i
New Mexico, in 1898, as claimed an
which was sub JUDGE in the court {
private land claims, were open to e,
p~loration and purchase under the mil
| ing laws of the United States.
"AS against a subsequent locator,
location, not perfected according to tn
| territorial laws, within the time pro
| vided, becomes forfeited and void, an
the ground embraced therein become
open to location, Plaintiff, to maintai
| eiectment against a subsequent locator
must show a valid location.
"When the facts produced by plail
tiff show a forfeiture of his location ha
taken place, it is the duty of the coul
| to instruct the jury to find for the d'
PENDANTS.
"When the facts show that Il forfeitul
| of plaintiffs location has taken plac'
for failure to perform the statutory r.
quirements for u valid location, it
immaterial 60 show such failure was
result of a conspiracy to defraud plail
tiff on the part of plaintiffs co-locat(
| with other persons who locate after fO'
fixture.
1.-THE assignment of a wrong reaso
for an act by the trial court is not a II
| versible error if the act done was in la
right.
"When the plaintiffs case is inheren
ly and fatally defective and is incu.
| able, the defendant is entitled to hay
the judgment affirmed, NOTWITHSTANDING
| errors of the trial court.
"When the paintiff allows his loo;
tion to become forfeited by failing
perfect same, as required by law,
cannot set up as an excuse for sue
failure that prior to the expiration
the time allowed by law to perfect h
location, others took adverse possessio
of his claim, of which he was not avail
until after forfeiture.
SIN order for adverse possession all
custer to furnish an excuse for not pc
fecting the location of a mining CLAIM
the party offering such excuse mu
have in some way been prevented ther
by from perfecting his location Wa
rem, Ferguson & Gillett for the plail
| tiff, Childers & Dobson for the defen'
ants. Notice of appeal OF writ of err
to the United States Supreme court h,
been given.
The decision in this case is of unusu'
Importance, not orly to the parties liti,
ant, but to the public in general, for tt
reason that it settles for the first tin
| the question as to whether the miner
| within the boundaries of a claimed Me,
lean or Spanish grant, such grant bein
at the time sub judice in the court
private land claims of the United State
was open to exploration for mining pu
| poses, and the decision holds the act
congress of March 3, 1891, expressly r
| pealed section 8 of the act Of July 2
1854, which established a reservation
lands embraced within the boundari,
of Il claimed grant, upon the report
the surveyor general, and therefore,
the law now stands, there is no statutol
reservation of any of the lands embrace
within the boundaries of a claimed graz
in New Mexico.
In case No. 74s, Southern Californi
Fruit Exchange, plaintiff in error, "
Martin p. Stamm, defendant in errro
| error to the district court of Bernalill
county, an opinion was handed down
Associate Justice McFie, which WI
concurred in by the rest of the cour
affirming the judgment of the lowe