Graftenreid v. Strong
| Decision Date | 10 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 2666.,2666. |
| Citation | 206 P. 694,28 N.M. 91 |
| Parties | DE GRAFTENREID ET AL.v.STRONG, STATE TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 77, Laws 1921, which establishes a state highway wholly within one county, violates section 24, art. 4, Const., which prohibits the Legislature from passing local or special laws in laying out, opening, altering, or working roads or highways, except as to state roads extending into more than one county.
Legislative intent is to be determined primarily by the language of the act in question. It is only in cases of ambiguity that resort may be had to construction. Courts cannot read into an act something that is not within the manifest intention of the Legislature as gathered from the statute itself. This would be judicial legislation.
Appeal from District Court, Santa Fé County; Ed Mechem, Judge.
Suit by Joseph De Graftenreid and others against Charles U. Strong, as Treasurer of the State of New Mexico, and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Legislative intent is to be determined primarily by the language of the act, and resort may be had to construction only in cases of ambiguity.
H. S. Bowman, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Pardue, C. F. Fishback, and T. M. Noble, all of Ft. Sumner, for appellants.
Geo. S. Downer, of Albuquerque, and H. R. Parsons and Keith Edwards, both of Ft. Sumner, for appellees.
The Legislature at its session of 1921 enacted chapter 77 of the laws of that session. Section 1 of the act provides:
“There is hereby created a state highway from the town of Ft. Sumner in the county of De Baca to the town of Yeso in said county; the detailed location and alignment of said highway to be determined and designated by the State Highway Commission.”
The act provides for a special levy of 2 1/2 mills on the dollar upon all taxable property within the county for each of the years 1921 to 1924, inclusive, to raise funds for the purpose of constructing, under the direction of the State Highway Commission, the said highway and a bridge across the Pecos river thereon.
Section 2 of the act authorized the State Highway Commission to anticipate the collection of said tax levies by the issuance and sale of debentures. Section 3 of the act directed the State Highway Commission to erect, construct, and improve said bridge and road, and for that purpose to enter into co-operative agreements with the federal authorities or others upon such basis as the State Highway Commission should deem proper.
In pursuance of the said act the board of county commissioners of De Baca county made a special levy of 2 1/2 mills on the dollar upon the property in the county for each of the said years. Likewise the State Highway Commission, by and through the State Highway Engineer, arranged for the issuance of highway debentures or bonds against the said special tax so levied to the amount of $40,000, and, together with the state treasurer, advertised said debentures or bonds for sale on June 29, 1921. Thereupon, on June 21, 1921, the appellees, representing more than 60 per cent. of all the property subject to taxation in said county, filed a bill of complaint against the appellants, seeking to restrain them from making sale of said debentures or bonds. An order to show cause was issued, and an answer was filed by the appellants, which admitted practically all the allegations of the bill, but denied that the said highway was entirely within the county of De Baca, and alleged the fact to be that, in so far as the act provided for the laying out, opening, altering, or working of the road or highway, it applied to a state road extending into more than one county in the state, to wit, State Highway No. 19, which extends from Texico on the eastern border of the state, through the counties of Curry, Roosevelt, De Baca, Guadalupe, Torrance, and Valencia, to the town of Belen in the latter county, which said highway had existed and had been designated as such state highway, passing through said counties, for many years prior to the passage of the act in question. In support of these affirmative allegations appellants put on witnesses to show the existence of State Highway No. 19, and that the highway in question between Ft. Sumner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Hamilton
...and given effect as written, that is, the legislative intent is to be determined primarily by the language of the act. De Graftenreid v. Strong, 28 N.M. 91, 206 P. 694; George v. Miller & Smith, Inc., 54 N.M. 210, 219 P.2d 285; Albuquerque Bus Co. v. Everly, 53 N.M. 460, 211 P.2d 127. Words......
-
State v. PRINCE
...extended or sustained as a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Henry, 37 N.M. 536, 25 P.2d 204, 90 A.L.R. 805; De Graftenreid v. Strong, 28 N.M. 91, 206 P. 694; Moruzzi v. Federal Life & Casualty Company, 42 N.M. 35, 75 P.2d 320, 115 A.L.R. 407; Tyson v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 47 S......
-
State v. Garcia
...Co., 40 N.M. 374, 60 P.2d 356 (1936); State v. Ortiz, supra; State v. Prince, 52 N.M. 15, 189 P.2d 993 (1948); De Graftenreid v. Strong, 28 N.M. 91, 206 P. 694 (1922); State v. Dennis, 80 N.M. 262, 454 P.2d 276 (Ct.App.1969). The legislature recognized this fact and amended the statute itse......
-
GONZALES v. SHARP & FELLOWS CONTRACTING CO.
...be given its plain and obvious meaning. Vukovich v. St. Louis, Rocky Mountain & Pacific Co., 40 N.M. 374, 60 P.2d 356; DeGraftenreid v. Strong, 28 N.M. 91, 206 P. 694; Harrison v. Harrison, 21 N.M. 372, 155 P. 356; L.R.A.1916E, 854; Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. Crile, 34 N.M. 650, 287 P. 6......