During the pendency of such suit or proceeding any person claiming to be interested in the premises may appear and answer the complaint and assert his right by way of intervention, whether such interest be derived or claimed under the common source of title or otherwise, and the court shall decide upon their [his] rights as though they [he] had been made parties [a party] in the first instance.
History: C.L. 1897, § 2685 (269), added by Laws 1907, ch. 107, § 1 (269); Code 1915, § 4382; C.S. 1929, § 105-1904; 1941 Comp., § 25-1204; 1953 Comp., § 22-13-4.
ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
Cross references. — For intervention, see Rule 1-024 NMRA.
Right to intervene is given to all persons claiming interest in the land, whether under the common title sought to be partitioned or by title independent thereof. Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676, aff’d sub nom. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914); Baca v. Anaya, 1908-NMSC-009, 14 N.M. 382, 94 P. 1017.
Owner of premises can intervene, whatever origin of his title. — The owner of the whole or any part of the premises sought to be partitioned may, whatever the origin of his title, intervene for the settlement of his rights. Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676, aff’d sub nom. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914).
When persons asserting adverse interests may intervene. — Persons asserting adverse interests may intervene in partition proceedings after commissioners have reported that partition cannot be made, and before further action of the court. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 34 S. Ct. 413, 58 L. Ed. 645 (1914) aff’g Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil, 1911-NMSC-042, 16 N.M. 349, 120 P. 676.
Intervention prohibited for purpose of litigating rights not originally raised. — A formal party, or a person who makes himself a party by his own conduct during the litigation, is not entitled to intervene for the purpose of subsequently litigating rights which he failed to assert in the main proceeding. Baca v. Catron, 1917-NMSC-074, 24 N.M. 242, 173 P. 862.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partition §§ 33, 74, 87.
68 C.J.S. Partition §§ 78, 222, 236.