{ "id": 2803749, "name": "A. E. THOMAS and Mura A. Thomas, his wife, Calvin Horn and Ruth Horn, his wife, H. B. Horn and Lucille Horn, his wife, R. P. Tinnin and Frances Tinnin, his wife, Arthur P. Quinn and Elizabeth Quinn, his wife, and M. M. Hardin and Jeanne C. Hardin, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George PIGMAN and Florence Evelyn Pigman, his wife, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Pigman", "decision_date": "1967-03-06", "docket_number": "No. 8144", "first_page": "521", "last_page": "524", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.M. 521" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "424 P.2d 799" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 N.M. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575336 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/37/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.M. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1587655 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/58/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2850825 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 N.M. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582014 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/54/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N.M. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2718564 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/68/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2803981 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.M. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5349407 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/71/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.M. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1587665 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/58/0379-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 5731, "ocr_confidence": 0.688, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1715264252336221e-07, "percentile": 0.77127334450773 }, "sha256": "23a63f715d86a573985bc2aaf7356f0b44a91f490e89a07516f050b25405e807", "simhash": "1:ab3ec4f63d0ed967", "word_count": 937 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "NOBLE and CARMODY, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "A. E. THOMAS and Mura A. Thomas, his wife, Calvin Horn and Ruth Horn, his wife, H. B. Horn and Lucille Horn, his wife, R. P. Tinnin and Frances Tinnin, his wife, Arthur P. Quinn and Elizabeth Quinn, his wife, and M. M. Hardin and Jeanne C. Hardin, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George PIGMAN and Florence Evelyn Pigman, his wife, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge, Court of Appeals.\nThis boundary dispute raises three issues: (1) laches, (2) acquiescence and (3) adverse possession.\nPlaintiffs are successors in interest to the original patentees of the Canon de San Diego Land Grant. Defendants are successors in interest to the original owners of land adjoining the northern boundary of the Grant. Over fifty years ago, defendants\u2019 predecessors in interest erected a fence which crossed the northern boundary and fenced off 14.975 acres of the Grant. The fence still exists. Both parties sought to quiet title to the 14.975 acres. Defendants appeal from the judgment quieting plaintiffs\u2019 title to the tract.\nDefendants assert that laches bar plaintiffs from asserting title to the disputed acreage. The four elements of laches are stated in Morris v. Ross, 58 N.M. 379, 271 P.2d 823, and Velasquez v. Mascarenas, 71 N.M. 133, 376 P.2d 311. Here, two of the elements (the third and the fourth) are missing.\nThe third element is lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit. There is evidence that plaintiffs\u2019 predecessors in interest informed defendant Pigman and his predecessors that the fence was on Grant land and offered to lease it to them.\nThe fourth element is injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the plaintiff or the suit is not held to he barred. The trial court found there is no dispute as to the true and correct description and location of the northern boundary of the Grant. It also found that the true boundary line is well-known, fully documented, and easily ascertainable. These findings are not attacked. With a. well-known boundary, which location is not disputed, defendants are not injured or prejudiced by the trial court\u2019s refusal to bar plaintiffs\u2019 claim on the basis of laches.\nDefendants emphasize another element of laches\u2014the lapse of time which they contend was an unreasonable delay. Lapse of time alone does not necessarily imply an unreasonable delay in bringing suit, but it must appear that-the delay worked to the injury of another. Little v. Price, 74 N.M. 626, 397 P.2d 15; Sharpe v. Smith, 68 N.M. 253, 360 P.2d 917. Thus, unreasonable- delay embraces two elements of - laches \u2014lapse of time and injury or prejudice.; The injury being absent, there is no unreasonable delay.\nLaches is an affirmative defense. Section 21-1-1 (8) (c), N.M.S.A. 1953'. \u2019Defendants failed to prove two of the elements of laches. The trial -court did not err in refusing to bar plaintiffs\u2019 claim -for laches.\nDefendants assert that the fence, as the! boundary, was established by acquiescence:This claim is made in two ways.\nFirst, they say that plaintiffs and: their predecessors in interest, knowing, .the boundary was disputed, did nothing.to disturb the fence line. Defendants contend this amounts to an implied agreement which shows acquiescence. A boundary may be established in this manner. Murray Hotel Co. v. Golding, 54 N.M. 149, 216 P.2d 364; Sproles v. McDonald, 70 N.M. 168, 372 P.2d 122. However, the trial court found there was neither express nor implied agreement that the fence would constitute the-boundary. The evidence of plaintiffs\u2019 witnesses supports this finding.\nSecond, even if there were no dispute, defendants say the fence was established as the boundary by long recognition of the abutting owners; and the long recognition amounts to acquiescence. A boundary may be established in this manner. Woodburn Bros. v. Grimes, 58 N.M. 717, 275 P.2d 850.\nThe second proposition depends on the fact of acquiescence. The trial court found as a fact that neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors in interest acquiesced in the location of the fence. The evidence of plaintiffs\u2019 witnesses supports this finding.\nAcquiescence has not been established as a fact. Assuming, however, that acquiescence was established, there is an unchallenged opposing fact. The trial court found the true location of the boundary. Sproles v. McDonald, supra, states:\n\u201cWhere, as here, the court has considered all of the evidence before it and has determined the true location of the boundary, and the boundary is different from the one acquiesced in over the years, on review we will not disturb such finding when supported by substantial evidence. * * * \u00a1>\nDefendants assert that the trial court erred in refusing to hold that they had acquired title by adverse possession. This contention fails because defendants did not have color of title. The only evidence as to defendants\u2019 color of title to the disputed tract is defendants\u2019 deed and \u25a0chain of title. The trial court found that neither the deed nor any other instrument in the chain of title describes, mentions or purports to convey any land located within the exterior boundaries of the Grant. This finding is not attacked. The disputed tract lies within the Grant.\nColor of title is required under both of our adverse possession statutes, \u00a7\u00a7 23-1-21 and 23-1-22, N.M.S.A. 1953. Green v. Trumbull, 37 N.M. 604, 26 P.2d 1079. Accordingly, we do not decide which section would be applicable.\nThe judgment is affirmed. It is so ordered.\nNOBLE and CARMODY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Judge, Court of Appeals." } ], "attorneys": [ "Simms & Garcia, Albuquerque, for appellants.", "Sutin & Jones, Albuquerque, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "424 P.2d 799\nA. E. THOMAS and Mura A. Thomas, his wife, Calvin Horn and Ruth Horn, his wife, H. B. Horn and Lucille Horn, his wife, R. P. Tinnin and Frances Tinnin, his wife, Arthur P. Quinn and Elizabeth Quinn, his wife, and M. M. Hardin and Jeanne C. Hardin, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George PIGMAN and Florence Evelyn Pigman, his wife, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 8144.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 6, 1967.\nSimms & Garcia, Albuquerque, for appellants.\nSutin & Jones, Albuquerque, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0521-01", "first_page_order": 553, "last_page_order": 556 }