9 N.M. 480 | N.M. | 1898
This cause comes into this court on error to the district court of Bernalillo county. Plaintiff in error makes the following assignments of error, to wit:
1. “The evidence being conflicting, the court below, erred in directing a verdict for plaintiff.”
2. “The trial court erred in deciding that there was sufficient evidence to entitle plaintiff below to recover in this cause.”
3. “The court erred in refusing to submit to the jury in this cause the special findings asked for by defendant below.”
4. “The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial of this cause.” .
5. “The court erred in allowing plaintiff below to recover the whole of the land in litigation.”
In the matter of the fourth assignment of error plaintiff in error relies mainly on the fact of having been taken by surprise in the matter of the testimony of a witness. Had the lower court refused to grant defendant below a continuance because of such surprise then this court would feel called upon to>more seriously consider this question, but as no continuance was asked for by the defendant below on account of this surprise we will have to leave the party where we found her.
As to fifth and last assignment of error, we think the lower court very properly directed the jury to award all of the land in question to plaintiff below, because the evidence of plaintiff below clearly established a paramount title in such plaintiff for all of the lands in question.
Plaintiff’s title under the evidence in this case, even though it is the result of open, notorious and adverse possession of plaintiff below, her guardian and those through or under whom she held is as absolute and perfect as' though it was under a direct patent from the United States government,, by virtue of the statute of limitations.
Judgment of the district court affirmed/ with costs and' writ of possession ordered to be awarded by the judge of said-district court.