Mr. Ulysses S. Koons, with whom Mr. Vedantus B. Edwards was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Arthur G. Dickson, with whom Mr. Arthur W. Rinke was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE.

As administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, the plaintiff in error sued to recover for the loss occasioned by his death alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant railroad company. Over the objection of the defendant the case was submitted by the trial court to the jury and from the judgment entered on the verdict rendered against the railroad company, error was by the company prosecuted from the Circuit Court of Appeals. On the hearing that court concluding that the evidence did not justify the submission of the case to the jury, reversed the judgment and in passing upon a motion made by the railroad company in the trial court, pursuant to the Pennsylvania practice for judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto it was held that the motion was well taken and the case was remanded to the trial court not for a new trial, but with directions to enter a judgment for the defendant. (200 Fed. Rep. 359.) As the case as made by the pleadings depended not merely upon diverse citizenship, but was expressly based on the Employers' Liability Act, error was prosecuted from this court.

We shall not undertake to analyze the evidence or review the grounds which led the court below to conclude that error was committed in submitting the case to the jury, because we think it is adequate to say that after a careful examination of the record we see no reason for holding that the court below erred in so deciding. As regards however, the ruling on the motion for judgment

non obstante veredicto, it is apparent in view of the recent decision in Slocum v. Insurance Company, 228 U. S. 364, that error was committed. It follows that our duty is to affirm and modify; that is, to affirm the judgment of reversal and to modify by reversing so much of the action of the court below as directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant. Conformably to this conclusion it is ordered that the judgment of reversal be, and the same is hereby affirmed, and that the direction for entry of judgment in favor of defendant be reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside its judgment and grant a new trial.

Affirmed and modified.

PRIEST v. TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO.

No. 218. Submitted January 28, 1914.-Decided March 9, 1914.

A judgment in a suit to quiet title to real property in New Mexico is not binding on a person or corporation or trustees 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 statutes of New Mexico which, in 1894, permitted unknown claimants to be joined as defendants 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 grounds on which the court below based the judgment.

The full faith and credit clause and statutes 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 proceedings 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 as 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 New Mex. 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.

Mr. John D. W. Veeder for appellants.

Mr. Charles A. Spiess and Mr. S. B. Davis, Jr., for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the

court.

Action for mandamus brought by appellants in the District Court of the county of San Miguel, then in the Territory of New Mexico, against appellees as trustees of the town of Las Vegas to require them to execute a deed or deeds to the property described in the petition. The appellees filed an answer to the petition and also a counterclaim. Those papers set out the history of the Las Vegas grant, preceding and subsequent to its confirmation by the act of Congress hereinafter referred to and the final patent to the town. Motions to strike them out were overruled, and demurrers to them were also overruled. An answer having been filed to the counter-claim by appellants, portions of which were struck out by the court

on motion of appellees, after hearing judgment was rendered dismissing the petition. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory.

The petition alleges appellants to be the owners in fee simple and holders of a perfect title to the land described therein and that it lies within the boundaries of "The Las Vegas Land Grant." That they acquired the title thereto between October 4, 1888, and July 1, 1894, by purchase from the then owners and occupants of the several portions comprising the tract and obtained deeds of conveyance therefor and afterwards instituted proceedings in the District Court of San Miguel County against certain named persons "and all the unknown claimants of interests in the lands and premises" adverse to appellants, to quiet their title to the lands, and that on September 15, 1894, a decree was duly entered in the cause confirming and establishing in them an estate in fee simple, absolute, against any and all and every adverse claim of all persons whomsoever, and quieting and setting at rest the title to the land against appellees. A copy of the decree is attached to the petition.

The petition also alleges that the Las Vegas grant was confirmed by act of Congress on June 21, 1860, to the town of Las Vegas and became thereby segregated from the public domain and the property of the grantee and its privies.

That Jefferson Reynolds, Eugenio Romero, Charles Ilfeld, Elisha V. Long, Isidor V. Gallegos, Felix Esquibel and F. H. Pierce are the trustees of the town, duly appointed by the District Court of San Miguel County under and by virtue of an act of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico entitled "An Act to Provide for the Management of the Las Vegas Grant, and for other purposes," approved March 12, 1903, and that it was made the duty of the board of trustees to make, execute and deliver deeds of conveyance to all persors who held a

232 U. S.

Opinion of the Court.

title to any lands of the grant, which became or was perfect or entitled them to the possession thereof at the time of the acquisition of New Mexico, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, or at any time subsequent thereto.

That appellants made application to the board of trustees to execute and deliver a deed to them of the tract of land described, the title to which had become perfected by the decree hereinbefore specified, but the board declined to recognize the title of appellants and to issue the deed of conveyance asked for.

Mandamus, directed to the board, was prayed.

The ground of appellants' petition, therefore, is that, they possess a perfect title established by the suit and decree referred to which entitled them to a deed from the trustees under the act of the Legislative Assembly of March 12, 1903. Laws of New Mexico, 1903, 72. That act becomes a factor for consideration. By it the District Court of San Miguel County is vested with jurisdiction to manage, control and administer the land grant. In the exercise of such jurisdiction power is conferred to appoint a board of trustees from among the residents upon the grant. Provision is made for their organization, and the court is empowered to exercise the same control over their acts as courts of equity exercise over receivers. And it is provided that "this act shall not interfere with or prejudice any vested rights in and to any of the lands embraced within the boundaries of said Las Vegas Grant, or preclude a judicial examination or adjustment thereof, and it is hereby made the duty of said board of trustees to make, execute and deliver deeds of conveyance to any and all persons who hold a title to any such lands, which became or was perfect or entitled them to the possession thereof at the time of the acquisition of New Mexico, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, or at any other time subsequent thereto." (§ 7.)

By § 9 the board has power, under the direction of the