Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1911-09-02
IMPORTANT As
!. TO TAX TITLES
Supreme Court Hands Down
Decision That Will Stir
Up Delinquents
OTHER IMPORTANT OPINIONS
Case Growing Out of Bank Fai-
lure at San Marcial Some
Time Ago.

lure al Sdn udECl6i SOmc
Time Ago.
The following opinions were hand.
ed down at the session of the terri
torial supreme court before final ad-
journment yesterday afternoon:
Court Opinions.
The following were the opinions
handed down by the Supreme Court
yesterday:
No. 1879. Ursinus Sidney Bateman,
ct al, appellants, VS.. Julius J. GIFTS,
ct al, appellees. Appeal from the dis.
trict court of Chaves county. Judg-
ment of the lower court is affirmed.
The opinion is by Judge Mechem and
is concurred in by all of the judges,
except Chief Justice Pope who did not
participate as he had tried the case.
The property involved in this case
were shares in a National bank. The
owner, GIFTS, had endorsed the certifi-
Gates representing the shares in blank
and had put them up as collateral for
a loan. Thereafter, the appellant,
sued out an attachment and attached
the stock. On the books of the bank
there was nothing to show that the
shares were held by any one other
than GIFTS. OF the attachment the
PLEDGE had no notice. The court be-
low found and adjudged that the at.
taching creditors lien was subject to
the lien of the Pledge. The syllabus
says: Under the federal statutes
the rights of a transferee of National
bank stock under an unrecorded trans
fer good at common law, are superior
to the rights Of subsequent attach
ing creditor of the transferrer with.
out notice.
Straus v. Foxworth.
No. $780, A. Straus, appellant, VS..
W. L. Foxworth, appellee. Appeal
from the district court of Quay coun.
ty. The judgment of the trial court Is
affirmed. The opinion is by Judge Alb
bott and is concurred In by Grief JUS
tice Pope, Judges McFfe, Parker and
Roberts. Judge Mechem having been
counsel in the court below, did not
participate and Judge Wright having
tried the case below did not partici-
pate.
The plaintiff was the owner Of GER
tain land in Quay county, title to
,,b;ob tbo aaForIovt otoivV,od IN bava
obtained through certain tax certif-
Gates, followed by tax deed, all Civ
en- by the treasurer of said county.
This action was brought by the plain
tiff against the defendant to remove
the cloud on his title created by said
tax deed.
The syllabus says: "a tax certifi.
cate issued under Section 81, Chapter
2 of the Acts of 1909, providing for the
sale without judgment OF court, OF
property for delinquent taxes for
amounts less than $25, vests title in
the purchaser which can be invalidat-
ed only on the grounds that the taxes,
penalties, interest and costs had been
paid before the sale, or that the prop
erty was not subject to the tax, and
not for irregularities in the proceed
ings leading up to the sale unless they
are fraudulent or amount to jurisdic-
tional defects.
! Goode v. Loan Company.
! Case No. 14O7. James Goode, Min
ME Goode, Reyes P. Martinez, Teles-
foro Martinez, s. Vandewart, appel
lants, vs.. Colorado Investment Loan
Company, appellee. Appeal from tho
district court of Union county. The
Judgment of the lower court is af-
Ifirmed. The opinion is by Judge Me
chem and is concurred In by all Of
the judges with the exception Of Chief
i Justice Pope who having tried the
case did not participate
This is an action brought by the ap-
pellee, hereinafter styled the plaintiff,
against the appellants, hereinafter
, styled the defendants, to foreclose .
mortgage on, real estate. Judgment
for the plaintiff, and defendants ap.
peal. The defendants assigned four
errors for the courts consideration
but Of these the first and second were
not before the court as they had been
| waived.
, The syllabus says:
ia l. THE plaintiff, Colorado corpo
! ration, made the defendants loan
I and took a mortgage on real estate
! situated in this territory. said mort
gage being executed within the terri
1 tory The defendants answered tha
/, the plaintiff had not complied Will
g the law Of this territory governing
foreign corporations and had no righ
to transact business in this territory
Held, the doing of single act o
business by q foreign corporation
does not bring it within section 101
: chapter 70, Laws OF 1906 provdin
that:
Every foreign corporation excep
banking, insurance and railroad COZ
Q porations. before transacting any bus
IS ness In this territory shall file in tn
! ONCE Of the secretary Of the terr
. tory copy Of its charter"
ol Following Cooper Manufacturing G.
FL vs.. Ferguson, 113 U. 8. 727. 4
5 2. BY their contract, the plainti
d and defendants agreed that the To-
y nf fho contract ahau1d he the sta