Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-10-14
ESTANCIA WINS IN
COUNTY SEAT
FIGHT
M'FIE'S DECISION
ENDS THE LITIGATION
ProgresSo Man Who Sought to
Stop Building of County
Court House IS Defeated,

Judge John X. McFie Of the FIRST
New Mexico district, has gwen Il w
Cis1ou in the case Of MactIip loII'f
". the board OF county cummlS-loH-
er~ Of Torrance county, which is OF q
great deal OF importance To the people
Of Ea'tancia, ana which ends what mas
promised to be Il long drawn Il lit
lgation. ine decision in Greet many
Establishes Estancia 8s the county
seat of Torrance county and upholdS
the law under which the county seat
was placed there.
The action brought by Macario
Torres. e citizen of Progresso, was 10
restrain the county commissioner al
Torrance county from Issuing bonds
aud using the proceeds 10 build a
court house ana Jail AT Estdnela Ihe
ground was the illeeaiitH of the law
Of the legislature placing the county
seat az Estancio.
Attorney +. \ Mann. who repre-
scented the commissioner of torrance
county in the action yesterday. re-
ceived a copy of Judge MeFie's opln-
ion, which is in part as follows:
In the District Court for Torrance
County. Macario Torres VS.. Board
OF county Commissioners of Tor
rance County. Injunction.
The plaintiff. Maeario Torres
brought this suit as d citizen and tax
payer of Torrauce county alleging
that the board Of commissioners were
about To proceed with the erection Of a
court house at the town of Estancla
without authority of law. and prayed
for an Injunction t. restrain the hoard
from doing SO.
While Chapter .. Laws 1903, is an
amcndatorN act. il amends the former
law I'm nearly all Of It's important pro
visions. IT. is really more eXtens1o
. l.y ghA fnts.a.4 rAf If. bound u rios
are changed. the county scat is differ
ent. new provisions are Inserted and
different provisions are made for the
payment of proportions Of indebted
mess que to other counties. Section
3 definitely locates the county seat at
EStancia, and while no reference ~
made to Section ? Chapter 20. Laws
l9U3. locating the county seat at Pro-
grcsso, this section is directly in con-
1ict with it. and there being a repeal
inc clause as tn all laws in conflict
with the law of 1905. section . of the
former act Is not in existence and has
not been since 1905. IT seems TO me.
therefore, that the present action
must be considered 4 eoilateral attack
upon the law as u now Stands, in that
the plaintiff. to he entitled to the re-
lief sought must successfully attack
tho act OF 1905. While of course this
may be- done. itemust be in a direct
proceeding.
The prayer Of The petition in this
ease ia that the defendants. its mem
btrs. officers. agents, attorneys and
representatives hc restrained u en-
Joined from building. contracting for.
or in any manner authorizing, permit
ting or allowing the construction of a
court house or either county buildings
for said county of Torrance. in or at
tho town of itstancia. .tc. 1t viii be
observed that IL Is not denied tnat
bonds for that purpose have been is
sued. sold and are now in the hands
OF innocent purchasers. indeed. the
prayer indicates that The proceeds are J
available for that purpose,
The above considerations are de-
cisivc az this case, and il does not be-
come necessary for the court 10 con-
slider and pass upon other contcn-
tons of counsel. however, lest il
might be understood that the views !
OF the court herein expressed practi- !
cally committed the court to a differ |
conclusion in the event that a di-
rect preceding was instituted. it is
proper To say that such a conclusion |
should not bc entertained for the rca-
son that a. direct attack upon the act
Of 1905 would involve several legal
considerations foreign to the present
action | do not regard the case OF
tiillhiN w. Nltfk, supra. as tolclN- |
-iyt of the question whether Estancid |
WAS the de iure or dc facto county
of Torrance county. While lam
suagc WAS used In the opinion which
De 50 understood, it aus be re-
nemh"rcd that the same was not
necessary to % decision Of that case. |
as IL was immaterial whether Estancia
was dc jurc or de facto the county
seat "f that county, thQ result would
a.. tho Sam. ffnItp flf4 r..r,t.F.,4. x
~ that case.
The Motor To quaSh is sustained,
injunction viii DE denied
thu temporary Injunction hereto
orc issued Will be punished at plain-
irs costs.
II Is so ordered.
JOHN Il. MFiE. Judge