State Ex Rel. Bd. of Com'rs of San Miguel County v. Romero
| Decision Date | 27 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1641, 1642.,s. 1641, 1642. |
| Citation | 140 P. 1069,19 N.M. 1 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. BOARD OF COM'RS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTYv.ROMERO, COUNTY TREASURER.STATE EX REL. COUNTY ROAD BOARD OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTYv.ROMERO, COUNTY TREASURER. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Section 7, c. 54, Laws 1912, which provides that the county road funds “shall hereafter be expended under the supervision and direction of the county road board, and the methods for making such expenditures and accounting therefor shall be the same as those now or hereafter required by law in the case of expenditures made by the boards of county commissioners.” Held, to authorize the county road boards to draw their warrants upon the county treasurers directly against the county road fund, in payment of supplies necessary in the construction of public roads, under the same statutory regulations now in force controlling the boards of county commissioners in disbursing county funds.
Repeals by implication are not favored, but will be declared by the courts in cases where “the last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject, and therefore to displace the prior statute.”
Chapter 54, Laws of 1912, granting to the county road boards general powers over public roads, held not to repeal by implication so much of chapter 124, Laws of 1905, as empowered boards of county commissioners to acquire by purchase or condemnation land for use as a public road.
A subsequent statute, treating a subject in general terms, will not be held to repeal by implication an earlier statute, treating the same subject specifically, unless such construction is absolutely necessary in order to give the subsequent statute effect.
Held, that section 7, c. 54, Laws of 1912, does not forbid the boards of county commissioners from drawing warrants against the county road fund to pay for land acquired for use as a public road, under the provisions of chapter 124, Laws of 1905.
Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; before Justice Leahy.
Actions in mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of San Miguel, and by the State, on the relation of the County Road Board of the County of San Miguel against Eugenio Romero, Treasurer and Ex Officio Collector of the County of San Miguel. From a judgment in the first case granting the writ, respondent appeals, and from a judgment in the second case denying the writ, relators appeal. Judgment granting the writ affirmed, and judgment denying the writ reversed.
A subsequent statute treating a subject in general terms will not be held to repeal by implication an earlier statute treating the same subject specifically, unless such construction is absolutely necessary in order to give the subsequent statute effect.
Ira L. Grimshaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George H. Hunker, of Las Vegas, for appellants.
C. W. G. Ward, Dist. Atty., and Chester A. Hunker, both of Las Vegas, for appellee.
In case No. 1641, the board of county commissioners of San Miguel county sued out a writ of mandamus against the treasurer of that county to compel him to honor its warrant on the county road fund, drawn to pay the purchase price of land necessary for the laying out of the public road. In this case the court below granted the writ, and the treasurer has appealed.
In case No. 1642, the county road board of San Miguel county brought an action in mandamus against the treasurer of that county to compel him to honor its warrant drawn on the county road fund to pay for necessary supplies used in the construction of public roads in said county. The court below denied the petition of the road board, and it has appealed.
No question is made in either case that the indebtednesses for which the warrants are drawn are not legal charges against the road fund, but the question is solely one of whether or not the board issuing the warrant has power to draw on the county road fund. Previous to the legislation of 1912 the funds available in the various counties for road and bridge purposes were subject to control of and disposition by the boards of county commissioners, and the road supervisors, who were appointed by the commissioners. This system had been built up by statutes containing general delegations of power over roads, their establishment and maintenance, and particular statutes such as those prescribing the procedure in the purchase of condemnation of lands for use as public roads.
By an act, entitled “An act relating to public highways and bridges” (chapter 54, Laws 1912) a new department of county management, called a county road board, was created and its powers to some extent defined. The following are the sections of that act pertinent to this inquiry:
“Sec. 6. There is hereby created in each of the several counties of the state a county road board, the members of which shall serve without compensation, and which board shall consist of three qualified voters and taxpayers, who shall be appointed by the State Highway Commission for a period of three years and subject to removal by said Commission for cause. Provided, however, that the members of such boards first appointed shall be appointed for periods of one, two and three years respectively, and not more than two of them shall be of the same political party at the time of their appointment.
Within ten days after appointment, and on the first Monday in March in each year thereafter, the members of any such board shall meet and organize by electing one of their number as chairman and one as secretary treasurer. The secretary treasurer shall give bond in an amount to be fixed by the State Highway Commission, subject to approval by the district judge. The officers so elected shall hold their respective offices until their successors are elected and qualified.
Sec. 7. All funds that may be derived from taxation, issuance of bonds, gifts, or bequests, or from any other source, for road and bridge purposes in the respective counties shall hereafter be expended under the supervision and direction of the county road board, and the methods for making such expenditure and accounting therefor shall be the same as those now or hereafter required by law in the case of expenditures made by the boards of county commissioners.
Sec. 8. Such county road boards are hereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. COUCH
...49 N.M. 181, 159 P.2d 768, where there appear discussions of the subject. In the earlier case of State ex rel. County Com'rs, San Miguel County v. Romero, 19 N.M. 1, 140 P. 1069, we hold: 'Syl. A subsequent statute, treating a subject in general terms, will not be held to repeal by implicat......
-
Farmers' State Bank of Texhoma v. (wolford
...713, 120 P. 318; Ex parte De Vore, 18 N. M. 246, 136 P. 47; Smith v. City of Raton, 18 N. M. 613, 140 P. 109; State ex rel. County Commissioners v. Romero, 19 N. M. 1, 140 P. 1069; State v. Coppinger, 21 N. M. 435, 155 P. 732; James v. County Commissioners, 24 N. M. 509, 174 P. 1001; State ......
-
Galvan v. City of Albuquerque
...Saiz v. City of Albuquerque, supra, 82 N.M. at 748, 487 P.2d at 176. As this court stated in the early case of State ex rel. v. Romero, 19 N.M. 1, 6, 140 P. 1069, 1070 (1914), repeals by implication will be declared 'where 'the last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit......
-
Borrowdale v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Socorro County.
...of the state, which work has no relation to the affairs of the county. The argument sought to be drawn from the case of State v. Romero, 19 N. M. 1, 140 Pac. 1069, that those provisions of general law creating the county road board evidenced clearly an intent on the part of the Legislature ......