Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1901-10-03
AN IMPORTANT
DECISION
The Statute of Limitation Does Not
Run Against County or the
Territory.
4 BENEFIT TO The PEOPLE
Suit for Delinquent Taxes Can Be Brought
Regardless of Lapse Of Time by the
Territory So Rules the Territorial
Supreme Court.
4 BENEFIT TO The PEOPLE

! ltilueu uoWH Wy llle oupIeiiie couil
! the territory at the special term whicl
| adjourned yesterday will be found o
| great interest and will work for tn
good of the commonwealth. Solicito
territory, and A. C. Campbell, Esq, O.
Roswell the defendant.
In the supreme court of the terri
tory of New Mexico.-No. $3.50.
James ]. Hagerman, Appellant
Territory of New Mexico, Appellee.
SYLLABUS.
An action, brought in - M ne o.
the territory OF New Mexico, for de
linquent taxes which are by law de-
clared to be the property of the coun
ty in which they are assessed ant
when collected to be payable directl.
into the funds of such county, is no
barred by the general statute of lin
itations of the territory of New Mex.
leo.
Appeal from the judgment of the
district court of the 9Th judicial dis
trict of the territory of New Mexico
within and for the county of Eddy; be-
fore Justice Frank W. Parker.
Mr.. A. c. Campbell, attorney for APP
pellant.
Mr. Edward l.. Bartlett, Solicitor
General, for appellee.
OPINION.
j. w. Crumpacker ].
This is an appeal from the judgment
of the court rendered against lands
owned by the appellant in an action
instituted in the district court of Eddy
county, on February 26, 1900 by the
district attorney, in the name of the
territory of New Mexico, against the
persons, real estate, land and property
described in the delinquent tax list of
the county of Eddy, for the years 1890
to 1898, said action being brought un-
der the provisions of chapter 22, Ses-
sions Laws of N. M, 1899.
The complaint sets forth every al
legation necessary to confer jurisdic-
ton upon said court and shows that
in 1894 certain taxes We're levied
against the property therein described
belonging at that time to the Pecos
Irrigated Farms company; that the
said taxes had not been paid and had
long been delinquent, and judgment
was thereby demanded against said
property for said delinquent taxes, ac-
crued interest, penalty and costs. On
March 7, 1900, appellant herein filed
his answer to said complaint alleging
as first defense, that after the taxes
for the year 1894 had been levied
against the property of the Pecos Irr.
gated Farms COMPANY and prior to
June 1, 1899, he became the owner OF a
portion of said lands against which
Judgment was sought to be obtained
for said taxes Of 1894; that prior to
July /, 1899, he had rendered To the
county treasurer of Eddy county all
taxes then claimed to be due against
said property and that the said treas
urer had failed to notify him that
there were any taxes due against said
property for the year 1894. AS Sec
ond defense appellant alleged that four
years had elapsed since said taxes be-
came due and payable and that no
proceedings had been instituted to en-
force the collection thereof until after
the expiration Of four years from the
time the same became due, payable
and delinquent. No reply was filed to
the first defense. To the second de-
fense, the district attorney interposed
a demurrer which was sustained by
the court. Upon entering the order
sustaining the demurrer, appellant ex-
cepted; and refusing to plead further
trial was had without the intervention
Of a jury upon the pleadings, resulting
in Judgment in favor of appellee
against the property described in ap-
pellant's answer for the sum of $685. 92,
being the taxes levied against said
property for the year 1894, exclusive of
any interest, penalty or costs.
Appellant assigns the following er-
rors: Il. The trial court erred in sus-
tanning the demurrer of the attorney
for appellee to the second defense of
appellants answer. 2. The trial court
erred in rendering judgment in favor
of appellee and against the land de-
scribed in appellants answer
Both assignments involve the same
principle Of law. Can the statute of
limitations of the territory of New
Mexico be invoked to defeat this ac-
tion brought February 20, 1900, to re-
cover a Judgment for taxes levied in
1894? That statutes of limitations
never apply to the sovereign or gov
ernment, unless expressly named
therein, is universally accepted as the
law in the United States.
City of Wilmington v. Crowley, 80 S.
E. Rep. IN. C.) 9.
Gobson ". Chateau, 13 Wall. 32
Greenwood v. Town of La Sale, 81
ILL.,, 225.
State v. School Dist, "a Kan, 242.
Des Moines County, etc, ". Harper,
81 Ia, 81.
Weber v. Habor Commrs, IS Wall,
70.
Dillon. law Of Municipal Corpora
tions, Vol. 2, Sec. 673.
We conclude therefore, without fur
ther argument, that appellants con-
tention that the New Mexico general
statute of limitations is applicable as
q defense unless the statute provides
otherwise is untenable.
CONTINUED ON Fourth Page)