Title: Plummer v. Johnson
Citation: 301 P.2d 529, 61 N.M. 423
Docket Number: 6113
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: August 15, 1956

301 P.2d 529 (1956) 61 N.M. 423 Chester PLUMMER, H.L. McCrary, C.A. Tevis and H.J. McCrary, Appellants, v. Sam JOHNSON, Appellee, S.E. Reynolds, State Engineer of the State of New Mexico, Respondent. No. 6113. Supreme Court of New Mexico. August 15, 1956. Rehearing Denied October 3, 1956. *530 Reese, McCormick &amp; Lusk, Carlsbad, for appellants. Lewis C. Cox, Jr., Roswell, for appellee. Charles D. Harris and Jack Love, Roswell, for respondent. COMPTON, Chief Justice. Appellants are seeking a review of an order of the District Court of Roosevelt County dismissing their appeal from a decision of the state engineer. The state engineer cross-appeals from an order dismissing him out of the case. Appellee, Sam Johnson, applied to the state engineer for a permit to appropriate waters from the Roosevelt County Underground Water Basin and appellants protested the same. Following a hearing before him, the application was approved and the permit was granted. Appellants issued a "Notice of appeal" from the decision of the engineer to the District Court of Roosevelt County, which was served on the engineer and appellee and later filed in the office of the District Clerk of Roosevelt County. The notice reads: *531 Subsequently, appellee and the state engineer jointly moved for a dismissal of the cause with prejudice on the ground that no appeal was taken to the district court within 30 days following the decision of the engineer. The motion was sustained and an order was entered dismissing the cause with prejudice, from which the protestants appeal. The pertinent statutes read: Appellee and the engineer take the position that taking an appeal from a decision of the state engineer requires the filing of a formal application therefor and the allowance of the same by the district court. As we construe the statute, no such application to the district court is required. The district court does not grant the appeal, nor does the state engineer. An appeal is taken simply by serving the state engineer and the interested parties with the notice of appeal within 30 days after notice of his decision, filing the notice with proof of service in the district court within 30 days after such service is completed, and the payment of the required docket fee. The engineer's decision was made August 5, 1955, and the notice of appeal was served on appellee, Sam Johnson, on August 23, 1955. The state engineer was served with notice of appeal on August 29, 1955, which notice was retained in his office as a permanent record. Thereafter, on September 28, 1955, the notice with proof of service, was filed in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Roosevelt County, the court to which the appeal was taken. The statutory fee was then paid and the case was docketed. Appellants thus complied with *532 all statutory requirements in taking the appeal. Compare Commissioner of Public Lands v. Van Bruggen, 51 N.M. 108, 179 P.2d 528. It must be borne in mind that the appeal provided is a creature of the statute and the word "appeal" does not mean that judicial power has been conferred on the state engineer or that the appeal is from one judicial tribunal to another. Quite the contrary; as thus used, it merely denotes the review by a judicial tribunal of the acts of an administrative officer, the state engineer. In the dismissal order, the trial court held that the state engineer was not a proper party to the action and he cross-appeals. We think there was error in this regard. The engineer has general supervision of public waters, the measurement, appropriation, and use thereof, § 75-2-1, 1953 Comp., and any decision entered by the district court is binding upon him, § 75-6-3, 1953 Comp. Consequently, on appeal from his decision, the engineer becomes a proper, if not an indispensable, party. We find the general rule announced at 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Bodies and Procedures, § 178, as follows: Also see Ferguson-Steere Motor Co. v. State Corporation Commission of New Mexico, 59 N.M. 220, 282 P.2d 705; State ex rel. Bliss v. Dority, 55 N.M. 12, 225 P.2d 1007; Bullock v. Tracy, 4 Utah 2d 370, 294 P.2d 707. The judgment should be reversed with direction to the trial court to reinstate the case upon its docket and proceed in a manner not inconsistent herewith, and it is so ordered. LUJAN, SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.