City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, No. 6684

Docket NºNo. 6684
Citation1960 NMSC 138, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698
Case DateDecember 29, 1960
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

Page 698

358 P.2d 698
68 N.M. 75
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee,
v.
Gertrude W. CAMPBELL; Elizabeth Ann Campbell, a minor, by
her Mother and Next Friend, Gertrude W. Campbell;
and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company,
a corporation, Appellants.
No. 6684.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Dec. 29, 1960.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1961.

Page 699

[68 N.M. 76] Keleher & McLeod, Russell Moore, Albuquerque for appellants.

Gilbert, White & Gilbert, Summer S. Koch, Sante Fe, for appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

This is a consolidated appeal of three cases, arising out of a single accident involving a dump truck owned by the City of Albuquerque and being driven at the time of the accident by its employee, Ernest J. Gomez.

Upon motion filed by the City of Albuquerque, the actions against the City were dismissed. The question presented for appeal is whether or not the provisions of Sec. 64-25-9, N.M.S.A.1953, protect the defendant City from suit. The trial court held the City could not be sued thereunder [68 N.M. 77] and dismissed the suits and the plaintiffs appeal.

Sec. 64-25-9, N.M.S.A.1953, was adopted as Sec. 2 of Chapter 192 of Session Laws of 1941. The act, including the title and Sec. 1 thereof, is copied in full as follows:

'An Act Authorizing the State Board of Finance to Direct the Purchase of Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance Upon All Cars Owned and Operated by the State of New Mexico

'Section 1. The State Board of Finance is authorized to require all officials or the administrative head of all departments to purchase and secure public liability and property damage insurance in such sums as they may deem advisable, protecting the state against property loss and the public against injury to property or persons because of the negligent operation of automobiles, trucks, trailers, tractors, graders or other motor vehicles by employees, agents or officials of the state, or any of its institutions, agencies or political subdivisions. (Sec. 64-25-8, N.M.S.A.1953).

'Section 2. No action shall be brought or entertained in any court of this state against the state or any of its institutions, agencies or political subdivisions for injury or damage caused by the operation of such vehicles, but the action for any such injury or damage shall be brought against the person operating such vehicle at

Page 700

the time of the injury or damage. Every policy of insurance upon such vehicles shall contain a provision that the defense of immunity from tort liability because the insured is a governmental agency or an employee of a governmental agency, or because the accident arose out of the performance of a governmental function, shall not be raised against any claim covered by such policy, provided the claimant, or plaintiff in the event suit is instituted, shall file with the insured and the company issuing such policy of insurance a release in writing of any amount of such claim in excess of the limit stated in the policy, and a further statement that any such release shall not be construed as an admission of liability, nor may it be offered in evidence for any purpose, and that no attempt may be made in the trial of any case to suggest the existence of any insurance which covers in whole or in part any judgment or award in favor of the claimant.' Sec. 64-25-9, N.S.M.A.1953.

Appellants argue two points for reversal to the effect that (1) the statute does not apply to municipal corporations, and (2) if it is held that it does so apply it is unconstitutional because the title would not meet the requirements of Art. IV, Section 16, of the New Mexico Constitution.

[68 N.M. 78] They argue that municipal corporations are not covered because the statute does not refer to municipalities and if they are covered it is because they are included within the term 'political subdivisions.'

In support of their position that they are not included they call attention to the headings to Secs. 64-25-8 and 64-25-9 in N.M.S.A.1953 wherein reference is to 'state vehicles.'

It would seem clear that the headings on each section of the statutes appearing in the 1953 statutes annotated are not part of the law. They were added by the editors and are merely descriptive and intended as aids in the use of the statutes. That these statutes are a compilation is evident from the language of Chapter 39, N.M.S.L.1953. A compilation is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd Ed.) as a book or document composed of materials gathered from other books or documents. See also Sullivan v. Siegal, 125 Colo. 544, 245 P.2d 860. The New Mexico Statutes Annotated published in 1953 pursuant to authority of Chapter 39, N.M.S.L.1953, is a set of books composed of all the then existing statutes gathered together in a new form. The court in the case of Wells v. Dice, 33 N.M. 647, 275 P. 90, held that nothing in the 1915 codification was intended as a new enactment. Such a conclusion is even clearer and more apparent in a compilation than in a codification.

Point is made of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, No. 9441
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 22 Noviembre 1972
    ...Clark v. Ruidoso-Hondo Valley Hospital, 72 N.M. 9, 380 P.2d 168 (1963); State v. Town of Grants, supra; City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698 (1960); Livingston v. Regents of New Mexico Col. of A. & M.A., supra; Elliott v. Lea County, Plaintiff seeks to avoid the effect ......
  • Clark v. Ruidoso-Hondo Valley Hospital, RUIDOSO-HONDO
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 29 Marzo 1963
    ...v. Vidal, 1933, 37 N.M. 256, 21 P.2d 90; Elliott v. Lea County, 1954, 58 N.M. 147, 267 P.2d 131; City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 1960, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698; Livingston v. Regents of New Mexico Col. of A. & M. A., 1958, 64 N.M. 306, 328 P.2d 6 Gallegos v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 1......
  • State ex rel. State Park and Recreation Commission v. New Mexico State Authority, No. 7650
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 28 Febrero 1966
    ...by means of concealed or hidden provisions in an act which the title does not disclose. * * *' See also, City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d We hold that the title of the Bond Act gives reasonable notice of the subject matter of the statute and that it does not violate Art......
  • State ex rel. State Highway Commission of N.M. v. Town of Grants, No. 6839
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 14 Septiembre 1961
    ...and we here expressly refrain from stating our views on the problem. Note is also taken of our decision in City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698, which was a case of an appeal from an order of dismissal of a counterclaim, although this does not appear in the opinion. Lik......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, No. 9441
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 22 Noviembre 1972
    ...Clark v. Ruidoso-Hondo Valley Hospital, 72 N.M. 9, 380 P.2d 168 (1963); State v. Town of Grants, supra; City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698 (1960); Livingston v. Regents of New Mexico Col. of A. & M.A., supra; Elliott v. Lea County, Plaintiff seeks to avoid the effect ......
  • Clark v. Ruidoso-Hondo Valley Hospital, RUIDOSO-HONDO
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 29 Marzo 1963
    ...v. Vidal, 1933, 37 N.M. 256, 21 P.2d 90; Elliott v. Lea County, 1954, 58 N.M. 147, 267 P.2d 131; City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 1960, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698; Livingston v. Regents of New Mexico Col. of A. & M. A., 1958, 64 N.M. 306, 328 P.2d 6 Gallegos v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 1......
  • State ex rel. State Park and Recreation Commission v. New Mexico State Authority, No. 7650
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 28 Febrero 1966
    ...by means of concealed or hidden provisions in an act which the title does not disclose. * * *' See also, City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d We hold that the title of the Bond Act gives reasonable notice of the subject matter of the statute and that it does not violate Art......
  • State ex rel. State Highway Commission of N.M. v. Town of Grants, No. 6839
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 14 Septiembre 1961
    ...and we here expressly refrain from stating our views on the problem. Note is also taken of our decision in City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698, which was a case of an appeal from an order of dismissal of a counterclaim, although this does not appear in the opinion. Lik......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT