Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1903-04-25
-. SALMON
VS.. GONZALES
Community Rights Statute of 1884 as to Prop.
erty of Husband and Wife Construed..No
Undue Influence by Complainant
Over Defendant.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT ORDERED BY COURT

Dollars balance of said purchase price
1T is further covenanted and agreed
that the said party of the first part
shall. from time to time, after the de-
livery of said deed and the payment of
said balance of, purchase price, when
soever made, make deed of further as,
of the second part, his heirs, executors
or assigns, and in the event that the
title to said premises is attacked, he
shall defend the same at his own costs
and upon the demand of the said party
of the second part shall gIfe him Sc
curity or indemnity against loss ac.
ceptable to him. and this agreement
shall be effective whether Incorporated
in the said warranty deed or not.
1T is further covenanted and agreed
that the premises herein described are
those which, beginning at the east and
running towards the west are occupied,
rented or leased by, Paz Conway, J. f.
Lacome, Eugenio Sena, Salmon 8
Abouselman, Patrick Hanley and
Davis. the plumber.
I'm witness whereof. we have hereun-
to set our hands the Sth day of April
1902.
(SigneD n. GONZALES.
(Signed NATHAN SALMON.
TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO,
County of Santa Fe, ss
"On this Sth day of April, 1902, before
me personally appeared Nazario. Con-
Zales and Nathan Salmon, the persons
described in and who executed the fore
going instrument and acknowledged
that they executed the same as their
free act and deed.
I'm witness whereof, 1 have 1lereunto
set my hand and official seal the day
and year in this certificate first men,
toned.
(SeaD (Signed) A. b. RENEHAN,
Notary Public, Santa Fe County N, M.
"El contrat TO antecedente Sc considera
y Sc entendera simplemente como un
no Sc consdera nj Sc en-
tendera como un traspaso documento,
el objeto de 10 cual es para obigar al
dicha Salmon comprar y al dicho
Gonzales a vender Ia propiedad mem
'ionda cuando Sc reciba Ia cuma de
leZ mil (s10,O00.00) pesos antedichos.'
(Signed) n. GONZALES,
Witnessed by A. B. RENEHAN.
That this contract was signed by the
came competent and the best evidence
lf its contents. The defendant, how
aver, denies the validity of the con-
ract upon the ground that he did not
ntirm was coerced into signing ana
was drugged by the plaintiff. Consid-
arable evidence was taken upon this
ISSUE of fact, and without referring to
nent the preponderance of the evil
lence is with the plaintiff, and does
not sustain the defense In any respect.
As for the reasons assigned for the in
,aidity of the contract, the defendants
testimony is substantially all of the
evidence upon which the defense relies.
md upon this issue, the burden of proof
s upon the defense nasmuch as he
seeks to avoid the effect of contract
signed by him: but to my mind the
testimony for the plaintiff overwhelms
hat of the defense, both as to the
number of witnesses and the clearness
and accuracy of their testimony.
cannot believe the testimony of the de-
fendant that he was drugged in the
plaintiffs store, nor as to the plaintiff
the defendants leg so as to
cause him great pain. nor as to the
finding of the check as testified to by
him. In view of the testimony of the
witnesses for the plaintiff, ! feel justi-
fed in concluding that his testimony is
not correct, and such being the case
there is nothing left of the defendants
evidence upon which the the court can
,ely. While the defendant is quite an
,ld man, his mind and memory when
We're quite clear as to those
matters which he regarded as in his
favor: in fact some of his answers gave
evidence of a man of considerable in
.elligence and business capacity. Upon
of the evidence in this
,ase l feel satisfied that the true facts
n the case are, that the contract was
,ntered into voluntarily and under
;tandingly by the defendant. The note
It the bottom of the contract confirms
his view, as it is evident from the tes-
imony of Mr.. Renehan and others.
hat the defendant simply wanted to be
ure that it was a contract for deed,
nd not deed he was signing, as he
aid some of the words used in the con-
ract made it read like a deed. But
when the note in Spanish was written
declaring it to be a contract and not
Iced, and having read it he felt sure he
would not be compelled to make deed
lntil he received the ten thousand dol
ars. he signed voluntarily and without
my coersion whatever. I feel satisfied
Ilso, that some person whom the evi-
lence does not disclose Except that "
s certain that is was not the counsel
CONTINUED on Second Page)