Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1898-09-21
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES.
D eisIon ofSupreme COurtln Cas-: Against
City Of Socorro.

III "
In case No. 76S, William Il. Miller,
plaintiff In error, aud John n. McCutchen
and J. NJ, Hill, interyenOrs, in the opin-
ion handed down by Associate Justice
Crumpaeker and %cOncurred In by the
other members OF the court, the judg
ment of tha lower court was affirmed.
THIS was an action brought by the plain.
till under chapter ~, session laws OF the
thirty second legislative assembly OF
New Mexico. known as the "Bateman
law" againtt the city Of Socorro. The
plaintiff was the bora ide Owner Of war
rants drawn up7n the treasurer Of So
zorro, RggTeyating the sum Of $l,S20 50,
and the interest thereon, and did In pur.
suance OF the act above referred TO. pre-.
sent the warrants at a regular meeting
OF The common council Of the city Of SO.
zorro on the nrst Monday OF May, 1897, to
be- funded into city bonds Of the city, but
the warrants were rejected ~ evidence OF
Indebtedness and the council refused TO
fund them, IA provided by the territorial
statute The plaintiff appealed from the
decision Of the city council 90 the district
court OF the Fifth judicial district OF the
territory. The lower court found that
the plaintiff had not shown any right TO
maintain the suit, each and all OF the
warrants having long been barred by the
statute OF limitation and the cause was
dismissed at the costs OF the plaintiff.
The ease was appealed TO the territorial
supreme court on n writ OF error, setting
forth that the interyenOra had no right
to set up the statute Of Limitation, and
other errors In the trial on the part OF
the court.
la the opinion rendered the supreme
court the following is found:
FINDING no error In the action OF the
court in permitting the Intervention, we
muat determine whether defendants in
error under their plea OF the statute OF
Limitations could bar q recovery by
plaintiff In error In this action 4 y
Had the city OF SOcOrrO on presentation
of the warrants then absolutely refused
TO pay the same. there can be no doubt
that the cause Of action accrued on the
date OF such refusal, and the city would
have been liable instanter. Bat from
the record In this case 1t appears the
court found that the refusal was based
on the want OF funds. We can discover
10 error on the part OF the court below
In entering judgment against the plain.
tiff in error in his petition TO fund the
warrants here involved, and tho case II
r therefore Affirmed
The following syllabus OF the case va.
. prepared by the court:
= A taxpayer may be granted leave Il
: intervene In An appeal taken under sec
I tiOn 2S9 OF the compiled laws Of New
. Mexico, 1897, by a claimant feeling
I aggrieyed by the action OF a city council
= lt IL not error for the court 10 entel
. judgment against plaintiff, a plea II IN,
statute Of limitations having been inter
> posed. on a petition 20 fund city war
/, rants, where there Is nothing in tn
I, TeeOtd in explanation Of the long della
OF ten years or more, extending from tn
date Of the city's Endorsement upon IN.
warrants Of not paid for want OF fund.
T. the date OF bringing suit, In institut
u ing the action.
u WE Kelly for the plaintiff, II. N
DOugherty for defendants.