Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1901-10-05
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Statute Of Limitation Not Against
County or Territory,
RELATIVE TO DELINQUENT TAXES.


found ~ great interest. and will work
Cor the good of the commonwealth.
solicitor General g. T.. Bartlett repre-.
..ntCd the territory and e. Camp
lcll ESQ of Ruawcli. the defendant
In the supreme court of the TORT.
tory NJ New Medicine SSG.
James y. Hngcrmau. appellant Va.
Territory ~ New Mexico. appellee.
SYLLABUS.
An action. brought IN the name pf
the territory OF New Mexico. for de-.
llnauont taxes which are hy law de-.
clarcd Co be- the property Of the coun
~ On which they are assessed aud
when collected 90 boz payable directly
into the funds OF such county. d. not
barred by the general statute OF lin.
itations OF the territory OF New Mex
too
Appeal from the Judgment of the
district court NJ The Firth judicial dis
trct of the territory Of New Mexico
within and fOr the county Of Eddy: be-.
fore Justice Frank w Parker
Mr.. A. G. Campbell attorney for an.
pcllaut
SIR Edward T. bartlett solicitor
general Tor appellee.
OPINION
T. W. Crumpackcr J.
This is an appeal from the Judgment
of the court rendered against lands
owned by the appellant IN nn action
/ instituted To- the district court Of Eddy
county on February 90 1900. by the
| district attorney in the name of the
/ territory uf New Mexico against the
pei sons real estate. land and property
/ described in ttc delinquent ina Vet NJ
/ the count" nt Eddy for the years 1890
| 20 lNiN. said action being brought uu.
/ Ger the provisions OF chapter ~. Scs.
| sion laws ~ Now Mexico 1899
Tho complaint sets forth every 81
I legation ntc'H.aIy to o0nfcr luIiadic-
/ ton upon cid rnur, eul .huN Chat
/ in lN'i certain tasoH wrro loyicd
4 uFnin 'Hc property therein d"Hcrihod
/ belonging tt thr. um" to the pDcos
! lfriEat Id'M '.uH1u that tht
| said t1fa hlt r.I been paid and had
! long icon l"H"H i AMI Judgment
was th' '' r'HtH.'l aE'Int said
/ popoIit o.. delinquent taNps. ac.
/ CLu'' in'. rf 800 D.t On
| March % l'N'. IH.t h.r'lu hlyl
/ MS cen iu ..I .irI1iut l,giug
as q N' ''it 'H.. after tho taxes
] Tor o." soar 't Nfi been lHyind
GEnin i. %. H. ih' l.cnt irri.
| gated s.' rul prior t1
juno u tu owner of q
! I'li''. 'I 1900 .Id against which
/ Iuiru w lt tI lo obtained
| Cor sg'i ".. ,G 'sA' that prior 20
July T.. Ie'f. I. hlI i.1d'rUd to The
/ county treasurer of Eddy county all
taxes then claimed tp Doe dua against
= said property and that the said trcas-
lrrr had failed o. notify him that
there were any taxes duo against said
! property Tor the year 1897 As src.
! ond defense appellant alleged that
! -FOUR years End olai ed since said take.
/ became duc ana payable and that nf
| proceedings had been Instituted 90 cn
! iurco the collection thereof until after
| lh' expiration oi i'lr years from III"
um' the sam" became due. payable
and delinquent SO reply was nlo3
! 70 the hf.t orfrn.r To the second
defense. th" district attorney inter
posed demurrer which was sustained
| by the court Upon entering the order
sustaining iho demurrer appellant oN.
! ccpteN 'nl refusing 20 plnad further.
! trlal wa ho' without the intervention
Of a jury upon the pleadlugs result.
ing in Judgment in favor of appellee
against "a" property de criboi loo az
| pellanta answer Tor the sum ~
s2S5 81. icing The taxes levied against
elusive ~ any interest penalty d.
| costs
A'l. .Ilnt &F' irus ih" fpiIuwin. D~.
! iprr We the tlAl court erred iu fI
! tanning the demurrer of the attorney
/ for appel. O. 90 tho second defense OF
| app .'Hutf uuHwcr. . The trini
coW. erred iu rendering Judgment iu
| FAVOR oi app"i.". and against tho land
| desc ih'i n appellants answer"
both assignments involve the same
principle of law Can The statute of
limitations az the territory 81 New
/ Mexico Doe invoked 10 defeat this an
ton brought February 20 1900 Co ra.
cover Judgment for taxes levied In.
iN'lt mat statutes of limitations
never apply to tho sovereign or gov
"rum,ut unless expressly named There
In. f. univni ally accepted GA the law
! in the United states
City OF Wilmington yH. Crowley. col
y. u. Rep y CO I!
Gobsun w. Chateau ~ Wall o.
Greenwood VS.. Town of Ia Sallo. 80
H. 225.
state fs. School List. 20 N1s, gia
Dies Moinca county. eta 80. iarrar
% IN. N.
Weber vs.. Hah0g CommrB rs wall
20
Dillon, law of Municipal Corpora
tlons vol ., e"c. C73
We conclude therefore without
further arrumont TINT appellants con
tcntion that the Now MoXlco general
statute oi LIMITATIONS is applicable rs
a defense unless the statute provides
othcrWlse. o. unicnnhlc
nor n the contention that the ter
TitoIN or New Mexico has no attribute
N Sovereignty trnn,lo. Tho Now
Mexico legislative assembly has am
legislative power
walker NF. Southern Pacific r. r
Co. 100. U. ?. G0l,
Ana THIS pnW,r includes the logItl
mate exercise 81 the power of taxa.
ton