State Ex Rel. Lynch v. Dist. Court of Mckinley County
Decision Date | 28 September 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 4319.,4319. |
Citation | 41 N.M. 658,73 P.2d 333 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. LYNCH et al.v.DISTRICT COURT OF McKINLEY COUNTY et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original proceeding by the State of New Mexico, on the relation of Frank M. Lynch and others, for a writ of prohibition restraining the District Court of McKinley County and David Chavez, Jr., the judge thereof, from proceeding further in a pending suit by W. Gordon Ward against the town of Gallup and others, wherein Allen Rollie, was appointed receiver of Paving District No. 2 in such town, and C. M. Sabin was appointed referee.
The district court having jurisdiction to entertain town paving district bondholder's suit for accounting of moneys received by town in payment of assessments from proceeds of which ordinance required town to pay bonds, an alternative writ of prohibition restraining further proceedings in such suit must be dissolved.
Alternative writ made permanent as to further proceeding with receivership, and dissolved as to further proceeding with suit as one for accounting.
H. W. Atkins, of Gallup, and W. A. Keleher and Theo E. Jones, both of Albuquerque, for petitioners.
H. C. Denny and H. S. Glascock, both of Gallup, and Gilbert & Hamilton, of Santa Fé, for respondents.
Relators, as holders of certain bonds issued by Paving District No. 2 of the town of Gallup, invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to restrain by prohibition the district court of McKinley county and the Honorable David Chavez, Jr., as judge thereof, from further proceeding in a certain cause pending before said court wherein a receiver was appointed to take over the duties of the town of Gallup, acting through its mayor and board of trustees, in the collection and distribution of the proceeds of the assignable lien certificates securing said bond issue.
The bond issue in question arose out of a paving program initiated and conducted pursuant to Laws 1903, c. 42 (Code 1915, §§ 3665 to 3671), Laws 1919, c. 152. The proceedings were had in 1921. The provisional order plan was used, and it resulted in the construction of the paving and assessments against abutting property to pay the cost thereof. Assignable certificates were at first issued to the contractor to meet the cost of the improvement. Then, an agreement was made between town of Gallup and the contractor, incorporated in an ordinance whose preamble recited proceedings theretofore had in connection with the paving program, and had further pertinent provisions as follows:
“Section 1. That all the proceedings heretofore had, taken, done or performed in connection with the street improvements described and ordered by resolution adopted on the 13th day of December 1921 and the 15th day of December A. D. 1921, be and the same hereby are in all respects ratified, approved and confirmed.
“Section 2. That the Town of Gallup be and it is hereby authorized and empowered to receive, collect and enforce the payment of all the assessments made for the said improvements and all installments thereof and all interest thereon, in the same manner and at the same time or times as the owner or owners of the assignable certificates issued to pay the cost of said improvements might receive, collect or enforce the said payments, and to pay and disburse such payments, the installments thereof and the interest thereon, to any person or persons lawfully entitled thereto.
“Section 3. That the Treasurer of the Town of Gallup be and he is hereby authorized and empowered, and it shall be his duty to receive and collect all assessments levied to pay the costs of said improvements, the installments thereof and the interest thereon, at the times and in the manner heretofore specified, and to pay and disburse such payments to the person or persons lawfully entitled to receive the same in accordance with the laws of the State of New Mexico and all ordinances and resolutions of said town heretofore or hereinafter to be adopted. All moneys received shall be placed in a separate fund to be designated “Paving Fund” and shall be used for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the paving bonds hereinafter mentioned, and for no other purpose whatsoever.
A copy of the material provisions of bond No. 139, held by one of the plaintiffs in said receivership suit, is as follows:
“No. 139 $500.00
“The Town of Gallup, in the County of McKinley, and State of New Mexico, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the bearer hereof, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars, on the First day of June, A. D. 1933, with interest thereon from date until payment at the rate of Seven Per Centum Per annum, payable semi-annually on the First Days of June and December in each year; both principal and interest being payable in lawful money of the United States of America, with New York exchange, at the Office of the Town Treasurer, upon presentation and surrender of this bond, or of the annexed coupons, as they severally become due.
“The said Town reserves the option to redeem this bond at any time before maturity, by paying therefor its par value and accrued interest.
“This bond is issued in exchange for a like amount of assignable certificates representing the cost of paving and improving certain streets and alleys in said Town, in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of New Mexico and the ordinances and resolutions of said Town duly adopted and approved prior to the issue hereof.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Altman v. Kilburn
...to the benefit, for the purpose of defraying the cost of the improvement.” We said in State, etc. v. District Court of McKinley County et al., 41 N.M. 658, 73 P.2d 333, 336, 113 A.L.R. 746: “Nor is there disagreement on the proposition that in initiating the paving program, appraising benef......
-
Munro v. City of Albuquerque (two Cases).
...for paving abutting their property, to pay also for that abutting the property of others.” See also State ex rel. Lynch v. District Court of McKinley County, 41 N.M. 658, 73 P.2d 333, 113 A. L.R. 746. In 38 A.L.R. 1271 and 51 A.L.R. 973 will be found elaborate annotations as to the liabilit......
-
State v. CARMODY
...District Court, 30 N.M. 130, 228 P. 758, 39 A.L.R. 1490; State v. Medler, 19 N.M. 252, 142 P. 376; and State ex rel. Lynch v. District Court, 41 N.M. 658, 73 P.2d 333, 113 A.L.R. 746. It may be admitted that there are in the opinions in some of these cases, especially the Medler and Hammond......
-
City of Pueblo v. Grand Carniolian Slovenian Catholic Union of U.S. of America
...the trial court had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. Among authorities cited were: State of New Mexico ex rel. Lynch v. District Court of McKinley County, 41 N.M. 658, 73 P.2d 333, 113 A.L.R. 746; Thompson v. Allen, 115 U.S. 550, 6 S.Ct. 140, 29 L.Ed. 472; and Yost v. Dallas County, 2......