Title: Campbell v. Village of Green Tree
Citation: 282 P.2d 1101, 59 N.M. 255
Docket Number: 5844
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 1955

282 P.2d 1101 (1955) 59 N.M. 255 W. S. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VILLAGE OF GREEN TREE, etc., Defendant-Appellant. No. 5844. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 21, 1955. J. Benson Newell, Las Cruces, for appellant. Frazier, Cusack &amp; Snead, Roswell, for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. The appellee filed a claim with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Green Tree for $549.22, asserted to be due him for back salary as acting police judge and also as acting clerk and bookkeeper. This claim was approved by the former board of trustees of the village. Appellee alleged as follows: The appellant admitted the allegations of paragraph one of the complaint, and by way of an affirmative defense to the allegations of paragraph two alleged: Upon the issues so framed the cause was tried to the court without a jury which resulted in a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $549.22 and defendant appeals. The court found: The court concluded as a matter of law: The decisive question for our consideration is whether or not the Village of Green Tree, a municipal corporation, is included within the provisions of Section 11-6-6, 1953 Comp., known as the Bateman Act, which is Section 15 of Chapter 42, Laws of 1897. The plaintiff seriously contends that the Village of Green Tree does not come within the provisions of the above section while the defendant contends that it does. In approaching this question we must consider the statute as a whole and ascertain therefrom the mischief the lawmakers intended to remedy, preceding its passage, in order that we may arrive at the legislative intent. At the time Chapter 42 supra, was passed, practically every county and a majority of other municipal corporations within the then territory were in a bad shape financially, and it was for this reason that the Legislature provided the means whereby they might ascertain and determine the amount of their indebtedness, other than bonded indebtedness, that may be floating, outstanding, and unpaid, and how they should be liquidated. The title of the act reads: In the same act the Legislature provided against a recurrence of such conditions as existed prior to its enactment. Section 15, Section 11-6-6, 1953 Comp., reads: In order to validate the void indebtedness referred to in the above section the Legislature enacted Section 18 of the same act which provides: It is inconceivable that the Legislature having prohibited the various bodies, specifically enumerated in Section 15, supra, from incurring indebtedness which could not be paid out of money collected for that current year would exempt villages. It is apparent that the words "board of trustees" appearing in this section of the act were simply placed in an unusual position. But we believe, and so hold, that it was the intention of the Legislature to use such words in relation to municipal corporations of whatsoever kind and class referred to in Sections 1, 7 and 11 of the act, otherwise such words would be meaningless. In addition we have made a detailed examination of the statutes relating to official bodies in force in 1897 and can find no body or board to which the term "board of trustees" could be related except to board of trustees of a village. Whether or not the appellee was entitled to hold the office of Police Judge by virtue of his appointment, as such, by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Green Tree, we do not decide. If he was not an officer de jure by such appointment, he was nevertheless an officer de facto and entitled to his salary for services rendered. See, 43 Am.Jur. Vol. 43, p. 224, Section 470 et seq. As to the amount which the appellee is entitled to recover for services rendered, the same is governed by § 11-6-9 supra. Were it not for this section all claims for fees, salaries and perquisites of any municipal officer that were not and could not have been paid by the money actually collected at the close of the year when the services were rendered or the fees and perquisites were contracted, would be absolutely null and void. It provides that such void indebtedness shall be validated to the extent only of receiving any money which may afterwards be collected belonging to the current year when such claim was contracted, and when collection of such monies was made that then they shall be distributed pro rata among the creditors having such void indebtedness. See, Territory ex rel. Adair v. Board of County Commissioners, 12 N.M. 131, 75 P. 38. Appellee contends that adequate funds are now available to pay him, and, therefore, there would be no void indebtedness even under the Bateman Act, and that the fund amounting to $6,400 collected in the fiscal year 1950-51 should be subject to the debts of the village. We do not agree with this contention. To do so would be to circumvent the very spirit and letter of the law as provided for in sections 11-6-6, 11-6-9 supra, and 14-18-9 of 1953 Compilation. The sum of money referred to by counsel was derived from a special assessment levied for the year 1950 for the sole purpose of purchasing a waterworks for the village which never materialized; consequently it became a trust fund to be applied by the board of trustees solely to the purpose for which it was levied, whenever it decides so to do. Under § 14-18-9 supra, "all moneys received on any special assessment shall be held by the treasurer as a special fund *1105 to be applied to the payment of the improvement for which the assessment was made, and said money shall be used for no other purpose whatever unless to reimburse such corporation for money expended for such improvements." Clearly the board of trustees would not be authorized to pay the obligations of the village chargeable to the general fund for services rendered by its officials in 1952 from the special fund levied for the year 1950 and which was earmarked for that purpose. It follows from what we have said that the trial court was in error. Its judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with directions to set the same aside and for such further proceedings, not inconsistent with the views herein expressed, as shall seem meet and proper. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.