379 P.2d 54 (N.M. 1962), 7073, State Game Commission v. Tackett
|Citation:||379 P.2d 54, 71 N.M. 400, 1962 -NMSC- 154|
|Opinion Judge:|| Noble|
|Party Name:||STATE GAME COMMISSION of the State of New Mexico, Said Commissioners Individually, and Fred A. Thompson, Director of the State Game Commission, Petitioners, v. Paul TACKETT, District Judge, Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, and by Designation and Agreement in Cause No. 32379 on the Docket of the District Court in|
|Attorney:||Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Boston E. Witt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lyle E. Tuetsch, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioners., Anthony J. Albert, George A. Graham, Santa Fe, for respondent.  Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Boston E. Witt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lyle E. Teutsch, Jr., Sp. Asst....|
|Judge Panel:||COMPTON, C. J., and CARMODY and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||November 09, 1962|
|Court:||Supreme Court of New Mexico|
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1963.
This is an original proceeding in the Supreme Court invoking our jurisdiction in prohibition brought by the State Game
Commission of the State of New Mexico against the Honorable Paul Tackett, as Judge of the Second Judicial District sitting by designation in cause No. 32379 in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, wherein Sid West is plaintiff and the state game commission, its individual members and its director are defendants. The proceeding seeks to prohibit the Honorable Paul Tackett, as such judge, from proceeding to hear or determine any matters in said cause in Santa Fe County.
The action before the respondent judge was commenced by the plaintiff, Sid West, to enjoin and restrain the state game commission from authorizing its permittees and licensees to go upon the state leased lands of plaintiff for the purpose of hunting wild game thereon. Defendants filed motions in said action moving the dismissal thereof for lack of jurisdiction by the court. After argument, the respondent announced that [71 N.M. 402] the motions would be overruled and that the court would assume jurisdiction. Thereupon, the relator applied for prohibition against respondent, basing its right to the writ upon the premise that the court was wholly without jurisdiction upon two grounds: (1) that the action is one against the State of New Mexico which has not given its consent; and (2) that the court is without jurisdiction in the absence of an indispensable party--the commissioner of public lands. An order enjoining defendants in the principal action was entered before relator's application for prohibition could be heard by us. This court, thereupon, in the exercise of its superintending control entered an order suspending all orders entered by respondent in said cause until the further order of this court.
It is contended that the district court is completely lacking in jurisdiction to hear or try any issues, and that any judgment rendered by its would be a complete nullity and subject to collateral attack. Considering, as we do, that the question whether the commissioner of public lands is an indispensable party is controlling, we turn first to that question.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP