Pankey v. Ortiz

Citations

• 26 N.M. 575
• 195 P. 906

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. In a suit to quiet title, where the complaint alleges the defendants are in possession of the land title to which is sought to be quieted, that they are cultivating it and have fenced it, and the answer sets up title, possession, and the right to possession in the defendants, the plaintiff has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in ejectment, and the suit to quiet title cannot be maintained. P. 585</p> <p>2. In a suit to quiet title, where the complaint alleges defendants are in possession of the land title to which is sought to be quieted, that they are cultivating it and have fenced it, and the answer sets up title, possession, and the right to possession in the defendants, they, the defendants, have a constitutional right to trial by jury, and the court is without jurisdiction to try the case as a suit in equity. P. 586</p> <p>3. A court of equity cannot, under its general powers, take jurisdiction in a suit to quiet title brought by one plaintiff against numerous defendants to prevent multiplicity of suits, when the defendants have nothing in common except their source of color of title, and each defendant has a distinct, different, and separate defense. P. 590</p> <p>4. Where plaintiffs in a partition suit, or a suit to quiet title, have knowledge or the means of knowledge as to persons in actual adverse possession of the lands to be partitioned, or the title to which is sought to be quieted, such persons cannot be bound by a decree in the partition suit or suit to quiet title by service by publication under the name of “unknown owners.” They are entitled to personal service under such circumstances. Priest et al. v. Las Vegas, 16 N. M. 692, 120 Pac. 894, and La Cueva Ranch Co. v. Rodriguez, 17 N. M. 256, 134 Pac. 228, followed. P. 593</p>