Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-02-23


must so interfere with government af.
fairs. True, the prayer for relief is
no part of the cause of action and can
not be 50 considered, but can see
no other relief which the court could
possibly grant than that prayed for
nor has any been suggested. fully
appreciate the contention so ably
made by counsel for plaintiff, that Of
ficers of the government may be en-
Joined from unauthorized acts Of tres.
pass done even by order of their su-
periors, and 1t may be that il the al
legations of the complaint are true,
they might have enjolned the build
ing of the dam in question, but this
they do not seek to do. They have
waited until the system is finished
and the property passed by operation
of law into the hands of the govern.
ment, and now seek to interfere by
a mandatory injunction with this
property and its management and op-
Grafton.
| think this case comes within the
doctrine announced in Stanley vs..
Schwalby, 1862 U. S., 255, and also in
Belknap VS.. Schild, 161, y. S. 10. In
the latter case Mr.. Justice Gray, says:
"No injunction can be issued against
officers of state, to restrain Or con-
troll the use of property already in
the possession of the state or money
in its treasury, when suit is COM
menced, or to compel the state to per.
form its obligations, or where the
state has otherwise such an interest
in the object of the suit as to be a
necessary party"
And this rule also applies to the
United States.
In Cunningham VS.. Macon & Bruins
wick R. r. 109 Y. S. 44G the court
says:
Dismissed for Want Of Jurisdiction.
"The inference is that where 1t Is
manifest upon the face of the record
that the defendant had no individual
interest in the controversy and that
the relief sought against them Is only
in their capacity as representatives OF
the state, which alone is to be affect
ed by the judgment or decree. the
question then arising whether the suit
is not substantially against the state
is one of Jurisdiction.
In the case at bar no relief is sought
against the defendant as individuals,
the dam which they are asked to
change is not theirs, but the govern,
ment's, and the management which
the court Is asked to control is
placed in the government by the
Reclamation Act. This in my
Judgment makes the distinction be-
tween the doctrine announced by the
Supreme Court in the cases OF Os-
borne VS.. U. S. Wheaton, 739, and
in U. s. VS.. Lee, 106 U. S. 1856, and
the other cases following them, and
the case at bar. There the relief
granted did not affect government
property already in its possession and
under its control, but only decided
as to the individual rights of the
parties claiming to act as its officers
ana agents These cases distinctly
say that the government Sand its
rights and property are not affected
by the decision.
It follows that the United States
being a necessary party and in fact
the only party adverse to plaintiffs,
who can afford the relief sought, the
motion to dismiss for want Of juris-
diction must be sustained.
EDWARD A. MANN,
Associate Justice, Acting by Stipula-
ton of Counsel in the Place OF Hon.
VIM. H. Pope. Associate Justice,
and Judge of the Fifth Judicial Dis
trict.