Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 (1914)
U.S. Supreme CourtPriest v. Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 (1914)
Priest v. Las Vegas
Submitted January 28, 1914
Decided March 9, 1914
232 U.S. 604
A judgment in a suit to quiet title to real property in New Mexico is not binding on a person or corporation or trustee 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.
The statute of New Mexico which, in 1894, permitted unknown claimant to be joined a defendant 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.
In affirming a judgment, an appellate court is not confined to the ground on which the court below based the judgment.
The full faith and credit clause and statute 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 proceeding in rem. Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U. S. 551, distinguished.
A town in New Mexico and its inhabitants are substantial entities in fact, and in this case have been recognized by Congress a 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.
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.
16 N.M. 692 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the construction of statutes of New Mexico in regard to serving process in real estate action on unknown defendants and the effect of a judgment based on service by publication, are stated in the opinion.