State Ex Rel. State Tax Comm'n v. Chavez
| Decision Date | 20 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 4519.,4519. |
| Citation | 44 N.M. 260,101 P.2d 389 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. STATE TAX COMMISSIONv.CHAVEZ, Judge. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the State, on the relation of the State Tax Commission, against David Chavez, Jr., Judge of the First Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, wherein an alternative writ of prohibition was issued commanding the respondent to refrain from taking further proceedings in certain causes pending in the District Court of Santa Fe County.
Alternative writ quashed and cause dismissed.
The fact that a state cannot be sued without its consent did not prevent city from suing to foreclose paving assessment liens claimed by it notwithstanding state claimed title to property involved, since no rights of state were jeopardized by suit or by contemplated sale of property. Comp.St.1929, § 90-1608.
John W. Chapman, of Santa Fe, for relator.
C. R. McIntosh and David Carmody, both of Santa Fe, for respondent.
This is an original action in which an alternative writ of prohibition has been issued commanding the Honorable David Chavez, Jr., as judge of the district court of the First Judicial District to desist and refrain from taking any further proceeding in certain causes pending in the district court of Santa Fe County, in which the City of Santa Fe is plaintiff, insofar as they relate to properties the title to which is claimed by the State, or show cause why he will not.
It appears from an agreed statement of facts that the State of New Mexico (hereinafter referred to as the State) holds tax deeds to certain property situated in the City of Santa Fe (hereinafter referred to as the City). At the time of the levying of the tax, and of the foreclosure of the tax sale certificates through which the State claims title, the property was encumbered by certain paving assessment liens securing paving bonds legally issued by the City.
Regarding paving assessment liens, it is provided (Sec. 90-1608, Sts.1929): “Such lien when delinquent shall have the effect of a mortgage and may be foreclosed in the method now provided by statute for the foreclosure of mortgages on real estate.”
The City (plaintiff in the actions pending in the district court) has foreclosed these paving assessment liens, and through the process of the district court will sell said property for the purpose of liquidating the bonded indebtedness they secure unless prohibited by this court.
The relator's contention, stated in his words, is as follows:
[1] We stated in Hammond v. Eighth Judicial Court, 30 N.M. 130, 228 P. 758, 761, 39 A.L.R. 1490: “We recognize the oft-repeated rule that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, but instead, is one of sound judicial discretion that is issued or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, and which is used with great caution in the furtherance of justice where it is plain that the court, officer, or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise some judicial or quasi judicial power; the exercise of which is clearly unauthorized by law and will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.”
The questions are: (1) Has the district court jurisdiction of the subject matter of the pending suits? and (2) Has the State a remedy through district court procedure that will adequately protect its interest?
[2] We are concerned primarily with the question of the jurisdiction of the district court.
“There are three jurisdictional essentials necessary to the validity of every judgment, to wit, jurisdiction of parties, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and power or authority to decide the particular matters presented, *** and the lack of either is fatal to the judgment.” In re Field's Estate, 40 N.M. 423, 60 P. 2d 945, 947.
Also see Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co., 168 Okl. 136, 32 P.2d 42; Windsor v. McVeigh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. State Park Bd. v. Tate, 45415
...the state is not an action against the state. Town of Ohio v. People, 264 App.Div. 220, 35 N.Y.S.2d 107. In State ex rel. State Tax Commission v. Chavez, 44 N.M. 260, 101 P.2d 389, the court held that a suit by a city to foreclose paving assessment liens against property owned by the state ......