City of Socorro v. Cook.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2107.,2107.
• Citation: 24 N.M. 202,173 P. 682
• Parties: CITY OF SOCORROv.COOK.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

24 N.M. 202

173 P. 682

CITY OF SOCORRO

v.COOK.

No. 2107.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 6, 1918.Rehearing Denied June 13, 1918.

Syllabus by the Court.

The Socorro grant, being a grant of certain lands for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the settlement of Socorro, was confirmed by Congress and determined by the court of private land claims to be a valid grant. The confirmatory act made no provision for a trustee to execute the trust. By chapter 77, Laws 1893, the Legislature of the territory of New Mexico named the city of Socorro and one Candelario Garcia cotrustees, and provided a certain procedure before the city council of the city of Socorro, for the purpose of determining the question as to the legal title to lands occupied and claimed within the limits of the grant, and also a procedure by which other lands might be allotted and sold to private individuals. Appellant's predecessor in title complied with all the provisions of the act, and the city council, as trustee, determined that such party was entitled to a deed to the lands in question in this suit. Twenty years later the city, by this action, sought to establish its right to a portion of the lands so conveyed to appellant's predecessor in title, under a claim now asserted that such land, at the time of such determination and conveyance by the trustee, had been dedicated to the public for use as a public plaza. Held, that the city council of the city of Socorro, having been created a special tribunal by the Legislature for the purpose of investigating and determining who were entitled to deeds to lands within the limits of the grant, and after due notice and investigation, in pursuance of said act, had adjudged that appellant's predecessor in title was entitled to a deed for the premises in question, which was executed and delivered in pursuance of said finding, and no direct proceeding having been instituted by the city or by any one in its behalf to test the right of such claimant or his title to such land within 12 months after the passage of the act or the assertion of said claim, as authorized and limited by the act, the question of appellant's predecessor's right and title to the premises in dispute became res adjudicata and not subject to collateral attack.

A decision rendered by an officer or a board of state or municipal officers, when acting judicially, and which has by law the force and effect of a judgment, is a bar to further actions on the same matter between the parties or their privies.

While the city council of Socorro, acting in its municipal capacity, had no authority to convey away its streets, plazas, or parks, it did have authority, as trustee, acting under said legislative authority, to determine the question as to the right of the claimant to the legal title to lands claimed, and to pass upon the question as to whether such lands so claimed had been dedicated to the public, and as to whether the city or the claimant was entitled to a conveyance of the legal title.

Appeal from District Court, Socorro County; Mechem, Judge.

Action for injunction by the City of Socorro against George E. Cook. From judgment perpetuating an injunction, defendant appeals. Reversed and cause remanded.

While the city council of Socorro, acting in its municipal capacity, had no authority to convey away its streets, plazas, or parks, it did have authority, as trustee, acting under said legislative authority, to determine the question as to the right of the claimant to the legal title to lands claimed, and to pass upon the question as to whether such lands so claimed had been dedicated to the public, and as to whether the city or the claimant was entitled to a conveyance, of the legal title.

A. B. Renehan, of Santa Fé (D. K. Sadler, of Santa Fé, of counsel), for appellant.

M. C. Spicer, of Socorro, for appellee.

ROBERTS, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Socorro county perpetuating an injunction restraining the appellant, George E. Cook, from fencing a certain lot or tract of land claimed by him under a chain of title reaching back to the city of Socorro itself, the appellee in this cause.

In 1892 the court of private land claims, at a session held in the city of Santa Fé, entered a decree confirming to the city of Socorro and one Candelario Garcia, in trust for the benefit of said city and the inhabitants thereof, four square Spanish leagues of land, having for its center the center of the Roman Catholic Church of the city of Socorro, and having for its boundaries one Spanish league distant from the center of said Roman Catholic Church to each cardinal point of the compass. A large quantity of said land so confirmed was held in severalty by various persons claiming ownership thereof or interest therein, and no power or authority having been given to the said city or said Candelario Garcia, by the confirmatory act of Congress, to carry out the trust and make deeds to the persons owning portions of said grant in severalty to which they might show themselves entitled, the territorial Legislature of 1893 passed a special act known as chapter 77, Laws of 1893, making it the duty of said city and said Candelario Garcia, cotrustees, or the duty of said city as sole trustee in case the said Candelario Garcia refused or declined to act, to receive applications from various persons for deeds to the portions of said grant claimed by them, and to investigate, and to issue a deed or deeds, in case the persons so applying showed themselves entitled thereto.

The special act, above referred to, defined a somewhat detailed procedure to be pursued by parties claiming deeds. The person applying for said deed was required to file an application therefor with the city council in writing, setting forth a description of the land claimed, the nature of his title thereto, which application must be signed and sworn to and filed with the city clerk. It thereupon became the duty of the city clerk to refer said application to the city attorney, who was required to investigate the application; and if upon investigation it appeared that said applicant was entitled to a deed, and no protest had been filed by the said city against the granting of the deed, it then became the duty of the city attorney, within ninety days after the filing of said application, to draw up a deed in proper form, and deliver the same to the city council, to be signed by the mayor and city clerk and said cotrustee.

Immediately upon the filing of said application, however, it became the duty of the city clerk to post a notice thereof giving the name of applicant, description of land, etc., said notice to be posted in a conspicuous place at the front door of the room of the city council, and to remain posted for three months. It was further provided that said notice should likewise be printed in both Spanish and English in some newspaper of general circulation in the city of Socorro, once each week, for a period of 90 days. Thereafter any person or persons, either on behalf of themselves or on behalf of the city, who claimed an adverse interest in any part or portion of the land claimed by said applicant, or denied the applicant's right to a deed, had the right, within 90 days from the date of posting said notice, to file a protest in writing, setting forth the ground thereof with the city council. The individual, company, or corporation filing such protest was required to follow the same by a proceeding, in law or in equity, in the district court of said county, against the applicant for deed, to test the question of ownership of said land. It was provided, however, that if a protest should be filed on behalf of the city, then the city and trustee should institute and prosecute the suit in the name of and at the expense of said city. Such a suit by an individual was required to be instituted within 20 days of the filing of the protest, and it was further provided that, if the party filing the protest was in possession of the land, then the adverse party claiming same was required to institute a suit within the same time limit, and the city council was required to withhold the execution and delivery of any deed until the determination of said suit.

It was further provided that in case no protest should be filed against the granting of the deed applied for, within the time and manner provided, or if such protest should be filed and the party whose duty it is should fail or neglect to institute his proceeding as provided in the act, the deed should duly issue. It was provided, however, that should any person make application for a deed to any portion of said land within the limits of said grant, and the city council, upon investigation thereof, was not satisfied that the land for which a deed was asked was in fact owned by said applicant, then the deed should be withheld until the court should determine, in a proceeding properly instituted therefor, that the city should execute said deed to such applicant; or in case any individual, company, or corporation should be in possession of or claim any part or portion of the land within the limits of said grant to which they or it may be not entitled as against the said city holding said lands in trust as aforesaid, then it became the duty of the city council to direct the city attorney to institute, on behalf of said city and said trustee, a proper proceeding in the district court in which the grant was situated to contest the right and title of said individual, company, or corporation to any of said lands so held or claimed, which suit was required to be instituted by said city against said parties within 12 months after such claim was set up to said lands by said individual, company, or corporation.

On July 2, 1895, the city of Socorro and Candelario Garcia, its cotrustee, after proper application therefor and due notice thereof, determined that Manuel Abeyta, the appellant's predecessor in...