Ellis v. Newbrough

6 N.M. 181, 6 Gild. 181
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1891
DocketNo. 386
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 N.M. 181 (Ellis v. Newbrough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ellis v. Newbrough, 6 N.M. 181, 6 Gild. 181 (N.M. 1891).

Opinion

Freeman, J.

This is a most extraordinary proceeding. So far as we have been able to extend our researches, it is without a precedent. It comes tó us by appeal from a judgment of the district court for Dona Ana county, refusing to set aside a verdict of a jury in favor of the appellee. It is an action of trespass on the case. The declaration sets out substantially the following cause of action, viz.: That, at the time of the committing of the grievances that the plaintiff complains of, the defendants were engaged “in organizing and establishing a community” called “Faithists,” and, being so engaged, the defendants, heretofore, to wit, about the years 1882,1883, and 1884, wrongfully and corruptly contriving and intending to deceive and injure the plaintiff, issued and published certain false, fraudulent, and deceitful writings, falsely and fraudulently and deceitfully, pretending in said writings to describe the true nature and objects of said community, and to set forth the true state of facts in connection with said enterprise, and thereby to induce the plaintiff to believe that said objects and purposes of the defendants, and said facts in connection with said enterprise, were far different from what they really were, and from what said defendants really intended they should be. The declaration then proceeds to set out what it is alleged the defendants held out the enterprise to be, viz.: That the property of the community was to be held in common, — no one individual to have any separate title and property; that said community was to be conducted on principles of brotherly love, without master or leader to exercise control over the members; that all the members were to enjoy equally a permanent place in the community, with no authority on the part of any member or members to exclude another; that said community was laid on principles of sound morality and purity of life; that the plaintiff, misled by these pretenses, was induced to become a member of the community; “that he did then and there enter into said community with defendants; * * * did consecrate his life, his labor, and all his worldly effects and prospects, together with those of his two children, placing all good faith and confidence in said community; whereas, in truth and in fact, said defendants knew at the time of making said false statements and pretenses that t-he property of the said community home would not be held in common by the members of said community, but that the title thereto was then and would in future be vested by deed in one individual, to wit,- the defendant Andrew M. Howland; and, whereas, in truth and in fact, defendants well knew, at the time of making said false statements and misrepresentations, that said community would not be conducted on principles of equality and kindness, without a master.” The declaration then proceeds to charge defendant Newbrough with acts of tyranny, and also with living a life of immorality, etc.; that, by reason of the false representations aforesaid, the plaintiff was induced to become a member of the community; and that he remained a member of such community from October, 1884, until April, 1886, both he and his two children working for the improvement of the home; “and the plaintiff saith that the defendants refused and still refuse, to pay plaintiff for his said work and labor, or any part thereof; by reason whereof plaintiff saith that he has sustained great damage in loss of time and labor and opportunity, and in the education of his children, and that he has suffered great anguish of mind in consequence of the dishonor and humiliation brought upon himself and his children by reason of his connection with said defendants in said community; to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000.”

To this unique and weird complaint a demurrer was interposed. The second and fourth grounds of demurrer are as follows: “(2) Because there are no sufficient facts alleged in plaintiff’s said declaration to charge these defendants, or either of them, with any liability to plaintiff by reason of the matters by plaintiff in his said declaration complained of; * * * “(4) Because the said declaration is duplicitous, in this: that plaintiff in his said declaration has attempted to plead more than one, and various and distinct and different causes of action in one and the same count.”

sufficiency of declaration, We think the court erred in overruling this demurrer. The most that can be gathered from the declaration is that the defendants had conceived some Utopian scheme for the amelioration of all the ills, both temporal and spiritual, to which human flesh and soul are heir; had located their new Arcadia near the shores of the Rio Grande, in the county of Dona Ana, in the valley of the Mesilla; had christened this new-found Vale of Tempe the “Land of Shalam;” had sent forth their siren notes, which, sweeter and. more seductive than the music that led the intrepid Odysseus to the Isle of Calypso, reached the ears of the plaintiff at his far-off home in Georgia, and induced him to “consecrate his life and labors, and all his worldly effects,” etc., to this new gospel of Oahspe. This much is gathered from the pleadings. The evidence adduced in support of the plaintiff’s demand is as startling as the declaration is unique. What the declaration leaves as uncertain, the proof makes incomprehensible. If the court below had been invested with spiritual jurisdiction, it might have been enabled, through an inspired interpreter, to submit to a mortal jury the precise character of plaintiff’s demand. We think an examination of the record before us will amply support these conclusions. The first and principal witness offered by plaintiff was himself. He sets out in full tlje nature of his grievance. He admits, on page 59 of the record, that he made no sacrifice of property to become a member of the organization, but that he “threw up a situation” in which he could make a good living. What induced him to make this sacrifice is set out in his testimony. First in order came some specimen of literature published by the society, community, order, church, or “Faithists,” as they were pleased to call themselves. Over the objections of the defendants, two books were allowed to go to the jury. The first and larger volume is entitled as follows: “Oahspe: A New Bible in the words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors. A sacred history of the dominions of the higher and lower heavens on the earth-for the past twenty-four thousand years, together with a synopsis of the cosmogony of the universe; the creation of planets; the creation of man; the unseen worlds; the labor and glory of gods and goddesses m the ethereal heavens. With the new commandments of Jehovih to man of the present day. With revelations from the second resurrection, formed in words in the thirty-third year of the Kosmon era.” In the preface to the book it is said of it that “it blows nobody’s horn; it makes no leader.” It is further stated: “When a book gives us information of things we know not of, it should also give us a method of proving that information true. This book covers that ground.” The inspired author-of this new revelation was doubtless somewhat .familiar with the writings of his early predecessors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mother Earth, Ltd. v. Strawberry Camel, Ltd.
390 N.E.2d 393 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 N.M. 181, 6 Gild. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-newbrough-nm-1891.