Moore v. Nat'l Bank of N.M. of Raton.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 3477.,3477.
• Parties: MOOREv.NATIONAL BANK OF NEW MEXICO OF RATON.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

35 N.M. 300

295 P. 424

MOORE

v.NATIONAL BANK OF NEW MEXICO OF RATON.

No. 3477.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 20, 1930.Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

Assessment roll could be used as complaint in tax suit notwithstanding assessor's failure to verify it (Laws 1921, c. 133, §§ 229, 421).

Failure of assessor to verify assessment roll, as required by section 229, c. 133, Laws of 1921, does not prevent its being used as complaint in tax suit.

Judgment and sale in tax suit held not subject to collateral attack except on ground that taxes had been paid or that property was not liable to tax (Laws 1921, c 133, § 435).

Under section 435, c. 133, Laws of 1921, judgment in tax suit and sale made pursuant thereto not open to collateral attack except on the two grounds stated in the statute.

Appeal from District Court, Colfax County; Kiker, Judge.

Suit by the National Bank of New Mexico o9f Raton against Mrs. Walter Moore, in which defendant filed a cross-complaint. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Judgment in tax suit held not subject to collateral attack except on ground that taxes had been paid or that property was not liable to tax. Laws 1921, c. 133, § 435.

Sadler & Doggett, of Raton, for appellant.

Fred S. Merriau, of Raton, for appellee.

SIMMS, J.

In the year 1921, Maria Cunico owned certain land in Colfax county which was assessable for taxes and upon which the taxes for that year were not paid. Suit was brought in March, 1923, resulting in judgment and order of sale; the judgment being dated May 13 and the order June 13, 1923. On July 14th of that year, the land was sold to the county and certificate issued on that day. It was recorded August 10, 1923. On October 18, 1923, the court confirmed the sale. Appellant bought the certificate from the county on February 15, 1924. August 11, 1926, she applied for and obtained a tax deed from the treasurer without giving notice required by section 453, c. 133, Laws 1921. On August 24, 1926, appellee, successor in title to Cunico, tendered to the tax title purchaser and to the treasurer redemption money and sought to redeem the land; being refused, it brought suit to quiet its title and was met by an answer and cross-complaint of appellant claiming title under the tax deed. From a decree quieting title in the plaintiff, the holder of the tax deed appeals.

[1] 1. The first question presented is whether the complaint filed in the tax suit was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Under section 421, c. 133, Laws of 1921, a duplicate copy of the assessment roll was used and, by corrections to show delinquencies on the margin, was filed as a complaint. It appears that the assessor made up the roll in triplicate for the year 1921, using the levies actually made by the county commission, and that one copy of the roll was properly signed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners, verified by the assessor, and receipted for by the treasurer. In some way that copy got to the office of the Tax Commission. The treasurer's copy was unsigned and unverified, as was that retained by the assessor. The trial court held that since the assessor's copy, which was used to file suit, was unverified, there was no jurisdiction to render judgment in the case. We have held to the contrary in Williams v. Van Pelt (N. M.) 295 P. 418, and Baker v. Johnson (N. M.) 295 P. 421. Those cases arose under assessments for the year 1920 and involved consideration of the provisions of section 5464, Code of 1915, which does not differ materially in substance from section 229, c. 133, Laws of 1921, in force when the assessment for 1921 was made. The trial court was therefore in error in holding that there was no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause for lack of a complaint, and in holding all subsequent steps in the proceedings void for that reason.

[2] 2. Appellant unsuccessfully urged below that her tax title was no subject to collateral attack except upon the ground that the taxes had in fact been paid, or that the land was not assessable. Neither ground was available to appellee, who does not deny the taxability of the property nor that the taxes were in fact unpaid and delinquent. Section 435, c. 133, Laws of 1921, reads as follows:

“*** After the expiration of such period of ninety days, and final judgment for the sale of property...