Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1908-07-27
RENDERS DECISION IN
RIO MIMBRES CASE
Court Finds for Defendants as to
Three Of Points Made and De.
clnes to Grant Injunction.

Judge John r. McFie, presiding
judge of the First judicial district
court, today announced his decision
in the case of the Rio Mimbres Irri-
cation company VS.. Robert P. Ervien,
territorial land commissioner, and the
United States Of America, wherein an
injunction was prayed for by the ir-
rigation company, restraining the
territory and the land commissioner
from cancelling the contracts for
lands under an irrigation project, for
violation of contract. The court finds
in favor of the defendants and refuses
to issue the injunction but at the
same time holds that the plaintiff is
entitled to it's day in court to deter
mine the equities in case of cancella.
ton of the contracts. The opinion
follows in full:
The Courts Opinion.
The case was before the court on
demurrer by the Territory and peti-
ton for Intervention by the United
States and not upon it's trial merits,
The decision of the court is therefore
upon the pleadings.
The court finds in favor of the de-
| PENDANTS as to three of the points
made:
First. That while the grant by
Congress conveyed the lands to the
territory, three trust conditions were
imposed for a violation of which a
forfeiture might be declared on the
option of the United States first, the
lands could not be leased in larger
quantities than one sectiOn second,
they could not be sod for less than
$1.25 per acre nor more than loo acres
to one purchaser, and third, the pro-
ceeds of sales and leases must be
used to secure the construction of
permanent water reservoirs for the
irrigation of the lands, that the funds
must be used by way Oh investment
or upon securities obtained and not
by donation to private persons or
corporations without any beneficial in
terest being secured, and all disburse-
ments must be made upon approval
of the secretary of the interior. 1t
was further held that Congress had
the power to impose such conditions.
Second. That the original contracts
of June 7th, 1901 and of July 1st,
| 1901. were executed under the act
of the legislature of 1899, as amended
by the act of 1901; that both of these
acts were repealed by the act OF
March 10th, 1905, which latter act
CONSTITUTED new law for the dispO-
sition OF these lands. That the con
tracts of December 5th, 1905 and
of April 7th, 1906, while purporting
to be extensions of the old contracts
were, in law, new contracts and must
be governed by the law Of 1905, in
force at the time they were executed
That inasmuch as they provided for
the sale of the lands at $3.50 per
acre, while the new law made S3 per
acre the minimum price at which the
lands could be sold, the contracts be-
ling in violation of this law and are
void
i Third The act of 1901 provided
THAT the lands should be located and
lselected so that they might become
|subject to irrigation, that the territory
might receive the benefit of the en-
|hancement of their valuefi but all o.
1.-THE contracts provided that the lands
Ishall be sold for $3.50 per acre for ter
iyears and only to such purchasers as
1.-THE Rio Mimbres company may pre-
|sent, thus depriving the territory O.
1.-THE benefit of the enhancement O
their value for ten years after they
become irrigable, the same time plac
ling it in the power Of the company tt
iobtain all enhancement in value, by
1.-THE provision that the lands cannot be
sold to any other person than those
lwho apply through the company, fol
ten years.
i In the decision which sustains the
:. demurrer upon some points the cour
} Estates that while there seem to bt
equities in favor Of the company, the!
cannot be reached at this time, bu
THAT they may be reached during thu
further progress, the equities being
biased upon payments made and worl
: done under some of the contracts.
The court further holds that th'
merits of the litigation are between th'
Territory and the company; that th'
United States Is practically a nomina
lparty, as it has not applied for for
feiture for conditions broken, but as a
i Ileast two of the trust conditions will
/, |be broken If the contracts are carried
| |out under their present conditions, th'
: United States is party in interes
) land under the code and other laws ha'
IL right to be made party in this liti
t |gation. The decision IS an exhaustive
! lone, covering thirty-one pages of type
written matter, covering every poin
i lin the case.
The company sought to enjoin th'
TERRITORY and commissioner of public
Hands from cancelling the contracts
but for the reasons stated the cour
Idnclinac to grant tha ini1nctiOn hi