In re Sevilleta De La Joya Grant
| Decision Date | 04 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 4293.,4293. |
| Citation | 41 N.M. 305,68 P.2d 160 |
| Parties | In re SEVILLETA DE LA JOYA GRANT, SOCORRO COUNTY.ROMERO et al.v.STATE TAX COMMISSION. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Socorro County; Harry P. Owen, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the Settlement of Taxes against and the Sale of the Sevilleta or Sevilleta De La Joya Grant in the county of Socorro, state of New Mexico, wherein Fred Romero and others filed a protest and motion to set aside the sale. From the order overruling the motion and protest, Fred Romero and others appeal and respondents move to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Supreme Court held without jurisdiction of appeal from order overruling protest and motion to set aside sale of realty made by county under statute authorizing a sale of property acquired by county at tax sales for less than full amount of delinquent taxes assessed against the property, since proceedings under such statute for sale of property are special proceedings and no appeal will lie from judgments therein in absence of provisions therefor. Comp.St.1929, § 141-452.
R. P. Barnes, Claud S. Mann, and Allen M. Tonkin, all of Albuquerque, for appellants.
C. C. McCulloh, Sp. Tax Atty., of Santa Fe, A.M. Fernandez, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Reid & Iden, of Albuquerque, for Thomas D. Campbell
The county of Socorro became the owner of 216,000 acres of land known as Sevilleta de la Joya Grant, situated in that county, through purchase at a sale for delinquent taxes under statutory proceedings in August, 1928. Thereafter, on the 6th day of September, 1934, the state tax commission filed a petition in the district court of Socorro county, praying for an order for the sale of said property by the county, as provided by section 141-452, N.M.St. 1929, for not less than $75,000. This statute provides in substance that whenever any property which has been bought by the county at any tax sale, or any tax sale certificate held by the county, cannot be sold for the full amount of delinquent taxes assessed against the land, that the state tax commission may file a petition in the district court stating, among other requirements, an estimate of the maximum amount that could be realized by the sale of such property. That notice of such proceeding be served on the record owner of the property and others interested, at least ten days before the date of hearing. That the board of county commissioners, the district attorney, the Attorney General, or any person interested, may intervene in such proceedings; and further as follows:
“If upon such hearing, the court shall be satisfied that the public interest requires that said property shall be sold, or the taxes be settled, for a sum less than the total amount of taxes, penalties, interest and costs assessed thereon, a decree may be entered authorizing the county treasurer to sell said property in such manner as prescribed by the court, or to settle said delinquent taxes, for a sum not less than the minimum sum specified in such decree.”
Provision is made that the county treasurer shall execute and deliver to the purchaser a deed which shall convey a fee-simple title. Taxes against this property amounted to some $137,000, exclusive of interest.
Upon hearing on the petition on February 21, 1935, an order was entered by the district court, authorizing the county treasurer of Socorro County to sell the property in the manner provided by law for not less than $75,000. Pursuant to this order, the county treasurer of Socorro county advertised the property to be sold on the 29th day of May, 1936; at which time he sold it to Thomas D. Campbell for $76,750, which was the only bid made therefor.
Thereafter, on the 29th day of May, 1936, there was filed in the same cause a report of the sale; but before the report was approved by the court, and on the 18th day of June, 1936, an “Amended Protest and Motion” to set aside the sale was filed by the appellants herein, prayer of which is “that the sale under consideration be rejected.”
An order was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Ramsbottom
... ... are superior, which under the authority of Irrigation ... Company v. Grant, 44 Wyo. 392, the district court ... had authority to determine, but that case is distinguishable ... ...
-
Central Missouri Paving Co. v. Kraft, WD
...to pass on the jurisdiction of the lower court." 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error, § 41 (1957). Cited: In re Sevilleta v. De La Joya Grant, Socorro County, 41 N.M. 305, 68 P.2d 160 (1937).1 Mo.Digest 2d Appeal and Error, § 23 (1983).First question for appellate court, in every case, is that of jur......