Case Title: Hatch v. Keehan

Citation: 293 P.2d 314, 61 N.M. 1

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1956-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
293 P.2d 314 (1956) 61 N.M. 1 Frances E. HATCH, Appellant, v. Virginia KEEHAN, Appellee. No. 6022. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 30, 1956. Glenn G. Stiff, O.O. Askren, Roswell, for appellant. Willard F. Kitts, Santa Fe, for appellee. E.P. Ripley, Santa Fe, amicus curiae. COMPTON, Chief Justice. Appellant, plaintiff below, brought this action to require restoration by appellee of public moneys allegedly paid her for personal services not rendered and to enjoin further receipt by her of public funds. The cause was tried to the court, and from an adverse judgment, appellant prosecutes this appeal to review alleged errors. The applicable statutes, § 40-8-12 and § 40-8-13, 1953 Comp., read: In August 1952, Tom Wiley, then Superintendent of Public Instruction, employed appellee as Director of Guidance and Special Services of New Mexico State Department of Education. As a part of her contract of employment it was agreed that during the summer months she might pursue courses directly related to her duties as such Director in some recognized college or university as to enable her the better to discharge her duties as Director in New Mexico. Thereafter, during the summers of 1953 and 1954, for a period of approximately eight weeks, she was enrolled as a student at the University of Colorado, during which time she received a salary of $535 per month. Her services with the department continued at least until the date of the trial. The question presented is whether appellee in fact rendered personal services to the state while pursuing her studies at the University of Colorado. We are relieved of the necessity of discussing the question to a conclusion. The statute confers no authority upon a private citizen to bring an action for the recovery or restoration of public funds. Compare State ex rel. Hannett v. District Court, Santa Fe Co., 30 N.M. 300, 233 P. 1002. Clearly, the authority granted private citizens is restricted to the bringing of actions to restrain the payment or receipt of public funds and we take note of statements of counsel at the oral arguments that appellee is no longer employed as Director by the Department of Education. Consequently, the question is moot and it is contrary to the policy of this Court to try purely academic causes. State ex rel. Hughes v. McNabb, 38 N.M. 92, 28 P.2d 52; Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo Co. v. Coors, 30 N.M. 482, 239 P. 524; Yates v. Vail, 29 N.M. 185, 221 P. 563. The appeal should be dismissed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered. LUJAN, SADLER and McGHEE, JJ., concur. KIKER, J., not participating.