Ellis v. Newbrough

6 N.M. 181, 6 Gild. 181
New Mexico Supreme Court·Decided August 19, 1891·No. No. 386·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.”

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

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

6 N.M. 181 (Ellis v. Newbrough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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