Batchelor v. Charley
| Citation | 1965 NMSC 1,74 N.M. 717,398 P.2d 49 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 7500,7500 |
| Parties | G. Harry BATCHELOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe B. CHARLEY and Sarah Charley, Defendants-Appellants. G. Harry BATCHELOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman YAZZIE and Christine Yazzie, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
James H. Milling, Aztec, for appellants.
Charles L. Craven, Aztec, for appellee.
Plaintiff (appellee) brought suit on a promissory note in the district court of San Juan County, New Mexico, against Joe B. Charley and Sarch Charley, appellants, Navajo Indians, who lived on land leased to them by the United States under the Taylor Grazing Act, not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation. Defendants, by special appearance only, challenged the jurisdiction of the state court, and have appeaed from an adverse judgment. This appeal presents the single question whether Art. XXI, Sec. 2 of the New Mexico Constitution denies a state court jurisdiction over a non-reservation Indian who was served with process on Taylor Grazing Act land, leased to such Indian by an agency of the United States.
The disclaimer clause of Art. XXI, Sec. 2 of the New Mexico Constitution, by which the state disclaimed all right, title and interest,
'* * * to all lands lying within said boundaries owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, the right or title to which shall have been acquired through the United States, * * *; and that until the title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall have been extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition and under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; * * *.'
has been invoked as denying jurisdiction of the state court over the Indian defendants in this case. Defendants argue that a lease of Taylor Grazing lands, even though located outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation, confers a 'right' upon the lessee, Sproul v. Gilbert, 226 Or. 392, 359 P.2d 543, and that the Constitution denies the state court jurisdiction over the Indians because, in this instance, process was served upon them within the boundaries of lands 'held' by such Indians. The contention is without merit.
A similar disclaimer clause in the Alaska Statehood Act was construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573, to be only a disclaimer of proprietary, rather than of governmental interest. We followed the Kake construction of the Alaska disclaimer clause in construing our constitutional stitutional provision. Montoya v. Bolack, 70 N.M. 196, 372 P.2d 387; State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66. Neither title, right of possession, nor disposition of the Taylor Grazing lands leased by these Indians is drawn into question in this action. Civil jurisdiction over a suit on a promissory note against an Indian who does not live on a reservation is clearly a governmental and not a proprietary interest, and it follows that Art. XXI, Sec. 2 of the New Mexico Constitution does not deny jurisidction to the state court under the facts of the instant case.
As to matters not within the prohibiton of the constitutional provision supra, the test of state court jurisdiction is whether the state action impinges on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be governed by them. Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251. Cohen said, in his Handbook of Federal Indian Law, page 379:
'In matters not affecting either the Federal Government of the tribal relations, an Indian has the same status to sue and be sued in state courts as any other citizen.'
See, also, Felix v. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317, 12 S.Ct. 862, 36 L.Ed. 719; Ke-Tuc-E-Mun-Guah v. McClure, 122 Ind. 541, 23 N.E. 1080, 7 L.R.A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cutnose
...Indian Reservation by a non-Indian against a non-Indian victim and which do not involve Indian property. See, also, Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49 (1965); Valdez v. Johnson, 68 N.M. 476, 362 P.2d 1004 (1961); State v. Begay, 63 N.M. 409, 320 P.2d 1017 (1958) (overruled by Wa......
-
Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe
...Village v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962); Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562, 417 P.2d 51 (1966); Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49 (1965); State v. Warner, 71 N.M. 418, 379 P.2d 66 (1963); Montoya v. Bolack, supra; Ghahate v. Bureau of Revenue, 80 N.M. 98, 451......
-
Law v. New Mex. Human Servs. Dep't
...ordinarily does not consider issues not ruled on by the district court. See , e.g. , Batchelor v. Charley , 1965-NMSC-001, ¶ 6, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49 (declining to review issue where appellant failed to meet the burden "to show that the question presented for review was ruled upon by the......
-
Gutierrez v. Albertsons, Inc.
...Albertsons' reply brief did not cite us to any part of the record indicating where the issue was preserved. See Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 720, 398 P.2d 49, 50 (1965) ("The burden is upon appellant to show that the question presented for review was ruled upon by the trial court...."......