Priest v. Trustees of Town of Las Vegas

Citations

• 232 U.S. 604
• 34 S. Ct. 443
• 58 L. Ed. 751
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1329

Syllabus

<p>A judgment in a suit to quiet title to real property in New Mexico is not binding on a person or corporation or trustees having an interest in the premises who could be definitely located and served with process and who were not joined by name. The court did not acquire jurisdiction over them.</p> <p>The statutes of New Mexico which, in 1894, permitted unknown claimants to be joined as defendants as such and to be served by publication, did not relate to parties who could be definitely located and joined or who were confirmees of the grant including the property under the act of June 21,1860.</p> <p>In affirming a judgment, an appellate court is not confined to the grounds on which the court below based the judgment.</p> <p>The full faith and credit clause and statutes enacted thereunder do not apply to judgments rendered by a court having no jurisdiction of the parties or subject-matter or of the res in proceedings in rem. Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U. S. 551, distinguished.</p> <p>A town in New Mexico and its inhabitants are substantial entities in fact, and in this case have been recognized by Congress as having, rights to be authenticated by a patent. When a town is a patentee it represents not only individual, but collective, interests. Maese v. Herman, 183 U. S. 572.</p> <p>Proceedings against some of the inhabitants of a town held in this case not to bind the other inhabitants individually, or collectively as a town, on the ground of privity.</p>