The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1914-02-25
United States Supreme Court
Sustains Decision Of the Ter.
ritOrial Supreme Court in
Decision Yesterday.
WHOLE VILLAGE OF
M WAS INVOLVED
Decision Sustains Constitution
atty of Adverse Possession
Statute of State Compiled
Laws Regarding Land
Grants.

The United states supreme court
yesterday handed down a decision sus-
tanning the decision OF the New Mex
leo territorial supreme court Ia the
famous Alameda land grant case. In
%volving almost every property owner
In the village Of Alameda, north OF
this city, and which has been pending
In the state and territorial courts
since 1906.
The decision OF the final tribunal
gives final Judgment in the long pend
ing action In favor OF the defendants:
-intervenors in the case OF Vicente
Montoya ana the unknown heirs ot
Francisco Monies Vigil. ct al, vs..
Candido O. Gonzales. ct al; which Is
the legal title OF the case.
News OF the supreme courts decl-
sion for the defense came In telegrams
TO A. b.. McMillen. attorney for the
appellants, and George ). Klock, at
torney for the successful appellees.
The effect of the decision is To sus-
tain throughout The decision of the
territorial supreme court confiTming
the title 10 strips % land In S~andoyai
and Bernnlillo counties. %extending
from the Rio Grande on the east TO
the Rio Pucrco on the west. claimed
by some eighty separate land holders.
who were made parties 10 the original
partition suit as %intorvonurs and 10
sustain the constitutionallty OF sec
ton 2g37 OF the compiled laws OF New
Mexico of 1897, which Is the statute
OF adverse possession In land grants
and which provides that claim to land
within grants given by The spanish
government Is binding when support
ed By a proper assignment OF interest
and undisturbed possession Tor = per-
iod OF ten years.
The Alameda land grant case is Of
general interest throughout New
Mexico and The decision OF tho Unit
cd sta supreme court is OF import
ance throughout the state. detefmin-
ing ms Il does the law in future cases
Of the same character. many OF which
are likely to arise in connection with
the partitioning of the old Spanish
ana Mexican land grants. II Is OF
especial Interest locally since It in
volves ,stle to "a large portion OF the
grant which lies along tho boundary
line between this and Sandoval eoun-
ties, extending from the ftio Grande
TO the Rio Puerco. and containing
some S9,3f6 acres OF land. much OF
which Is fertile valley lana with wa
ter rights. Almost every family in
Alameda VAS interested directly In
the case.
Action for the partition Of the Ala
media grant was brought on JUNE 18th.
1905. the case being entitled Vicentl
Montoya and the unknown heirs Of
Francisco Monies Vigil, 1t al. VS..
Candida q. Gonzales. ct a.. the suit
being brought by parties Interested in
a large portion OF the grant through
purchase.
In July, 1907. some eighty or more
individuals living on the grant and
claiming title To strips OF land OF
varying widths, extending from the
Rio Grande TO the Rio Puerco, APP
peared with a petition To intervene,
which petition was granted hy Judge
Abbott. then presiding In this district;
the petitioners claiming Individual
rights In fee. In March, 1909. after
the taking Of n great mass of testi-
mony. he district court sustained the
in%tervcnors and confirmed their own
ership In their various strips az de-
scribed above, they having shown TO
Ntlu httur VI tRnNt2 ahtt anu 70 NaNf
had ten years possession. as required
by section 2g37 OF the con piled laws
Of 1897. relating to adverse possession
or land within spanish land grants
This cas was appealed 40 the terri
torial supreme court. which In sep
TENDER, 1911, affirmed the decision
of the lower court.
on petition OF A. n. McMhllen, at
torney for the plaintiffs. n rc-hearlng
was granted, but he supreme court
rcaf0rmcd its Judgment sustaining the
decision of the lower court. This was
in December. 1879, just before the
territorial court passed out Of exist
cnce. and under the territorial procens
ure appeal was allowed n was taken
direct TO the United States supreme
court, where the case has since been
handing