Sierra County v. Dona Ana County.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1889 |
| Citation | 5 N.M. 190,21 P. 83 |
| Parties | SIERRA COUNTYv.DONA ANA COUNTY. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to district court, Grant county.
The term “indebtedness” in section 8 of the act of April 3, 1884, creating the county of Sierra out of parts of the counties of Dona Ana, Grant, and Socorro, and providing that the indebtedness of Dona Ana county, existing at the date of its approval, shall be apportioned between that county and Sierra, on the basis of the last assessment of property for taxation in Dona Ana county, as it stood at the date and prior to the approval of the act, in proportion to the amount of the taxable property of the county, must be understood as having been used by the legislature in its ordinary sense, which would include debts of every kind and description.
Elliott & Pickett, for plaintiff in error.
Rynerson & Waldow, for defendant in error.
The board of county commissioners of the county of Dona Ana, for and in behalf of the county of Dona Ana, brought this suit in which it complains of the board of county commissioners of Sierra county, acting for and in behalf of the county of Sierra, in an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff in its declaration alleges that on the 3d day of April, 1884, the legislative assembly of this territory passed “An act creating and organizing the county of Sierra,” and thereby cut off and deprived the county of Dona Ana of a large portion of its territory, and made it a portion of the county of Sierra, and therein providing that the indebtedness of Dona Ana county, existing at the date of the approval of the act, should be apportioned between the county of Dona Ana and the county of Sierra, on the basis of the last assessment of the property made for purposes of taxation in the county of Dona Ana, as the same stood at the date and prior to the passage of the act, and in proportion to the amount of taxable property taken from the county of Dona Ana. The plaintiff claimed the sum of $14,410.50 as the proportion of the indebtedness due from the county of Sierra to the county of Dona Ana by reason of the apportionment, and prayed for $15,000 as damages, together with interest and costs. The plea of the general issue was filed for the defendant. A jury was waived, and the cause was submitted to the court, and, the court having heard the evidence and the argument of counsel found the county of Sierra was indebted to the county of Dona Ana in the sum of $14,065.95, and rendered judgment for Dona Ana county, and against the county of Sierra, for that sum, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the judgment until paid, and costs of suit. The plaintiff in error has brought the case into this court by a writ of error, and assigns as error: First. The court erred in holding that the plaintiff in error was liable or indebted to the defendant in error for any part or portion or proportion of the court-house bonds issued by the defendant in error, amounting to or being for $29,500. Second. The court erred in holding that the alleged assessment roll offered in evidence by the defendant in error was the assessment roll of said Dona Ana county for the year A. D. 1883. Third. The court erred in admitting in evidence said alleged assessment roll offered in evidence by said defendant in error as the assessment roll of said Dona Ana county for the year A. D. 1883. And prays that the judgment may be reversed, annulled, and held for nothing, and that the plaintiff in error be restored to all things it has lost by reason thereof.
It is contended for the plaintiff in error that a doubt exists as to the meaning of the first and eighth sections of the act of the legislative assembly creating and organizing the county of Sierra. By this act it seems that parts of Dona Ana, Socorro, and Grant counties were taken from each of these counties to form and constitute the new county of the Sierra. The first section of the act defines the boundaries and limits of the new county, and provides “that the property thus separated from the county of Socorro shall not be exempt from its share of taxation to pay the outstanding bonded indebtedness of Socorro county.” Section 8 provides that “the indebtedness of the counties of Grant and Dona Ana shall be apportioned on the basis of the last assessment with said county of Sierra, in proportion to the amount of taxable property taken from each of said counties.” The word “indebtedness,” as used in the eighth section of the act, is broad enough to include debts of every description and kind. It is defined as “the state of being indebted,” and “indebted” as “being in debt,” “having incurred a debt.” Webst. Dict. By the expression “indebtedness” of the counties of Grant and Dona Ana, the legislature must have intended what that expression means in common parlance. Comp. Laws N. M. § 1851. In support of the second and third assignments of error counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonneville County v. Bingham County
... ... v. Howard Co., 51 Ark. 344, 11 S.W ... 478; Washington Co. v. Weld Co., 12 Colo. 152, 20 P ... 273; Board of County Commrs. of Sierra Co. v. Dona Ana ... Co., 5 N. M. 190, 21 P. 83; State v. Hordey, 41 Kan ... 630, 21 P. 601.) ... STEWART, ... J. Ailshie, C. J., and ... ...
-
Western Coll. of N.M. v. Turknett.
...of error. Rogers v. Richards, 8 N. M. 663 ; Territory v. Anderson, 4 N. M. [Gild.] 228 ; Spiegelberg v. Mink, 1 N. M. 308; Sierra Co. v. Dona Ana Co., 5 N. M. 190 ; Territory v. Chavez, 9 N. M. 282 . The cases above cited are decisive of this case as to the necessity for filing a motion for......
-
Rogers v. Richards.
...a motion for new trial, and it is perhaps needless to append a list of authorities sustaining this view. The case of Sierra Co. v. Dona Ana Co., 5 N. M. 190, 21 Pac. 83, followed Spiegelberg v. Mink, supra; but in the same case the majority of the court considered an alleged error of law ar......