Title: State v. Vigil
Citation: 398 P.2d 987, 74 N.M. 766
Docket Number: 7509
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 1965

398 P.2d 987 (1965) 74 N.M. 766 STATE of New Mexico ex rel. SUN COMPANY, Inc., and Sun Company, Inc., Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Cipriano VIGIL, Mayor of the Village of Espanola, C. L. Hunter, Tomas Vigil, Luis Quintana, and Bernabe Jacquez, Members of the Village Council of the Village of Espanola, Dolores Haas, Village Clerk of the Village of Espanola, and the Village of Espanola, a municipal corporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 7509. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 1, 1965. *988 Bigbee &amp; Byrd, Zerne P. Haning, III, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellants. Smith, Kiker &amp; Ransom, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellees. CARMODY, Chief Justice. The Village of Espanola appeals from a judgment entered by the district court, making absolute a writ of mandamus, which, in effect, requires the village to publish ordinances and other notices required by law in two separate newspapers. Although three questions are raised on appeal, we find it necessary to only reach one, viz., whether the word "published" as used in § 14-25-7, N.M.S.A. 1953, is synonymous with the word "printed." The corporate limits of the Village of Espanola are partially located in Rio Arriba County and partially in Santa Fe County. For some time prior to April 1963, the village had published all of its legal notices in both the New Mexican, a daily newspaper, and in the Rio Grande Sun, a weekly newspaper. The New Mexican is actually printed in the City of Santa Fe, but maintains a reporter in Espanola, whereas the Rio Grande Sun maintains its printing office in the Rio Arriba County portion of the Village of Espanola. Both papers are of general circulation in the village. The Rio Grande Sun holds a second-class mailing permit in Rio Arriba County, but not in Santa Fe County; and the New Mexican holds a second-class mailing permit in Santa Fe County, but not in Rio Arriba County. Following an opinion from the attorney general, the village council voted to publish all future ordinances and legal notices only in the New Mexican. The Sun Company, Inc. then instituted this action, which sought both mandamus and a declaratory judgment. Section 14-25-7, N.M.S.A. 1953, provides for the publication of ordinances, and, insofar as pertinent, reads as follows: It was the view of the trial court, and is urged by appellees here, that the above language must be read together, or in pari materia, with § 10-2-2, N.M.S.A. 1953, which defines a "legal newspaper." This section reads as follows: We would observe that one of the reasons for the use of the pari materia doctrine is to settle ambiguity, if it exists in the construction of a particular statute. Actually, there is no ambiguity in § 14-25-7, supra, and, therefore, other than to answer the principal issue raised, there would be little need to discuss § 10-2-2, supra. Appellants urge that the word "published" as used in the statutes means to give notice to the residents of the municipal corporation by advertising the same in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality, regardless of where the newspaper is physically printed. Appellees, to the contrary, declare that the word "published" contemplates the physical printing of the newspaper within the boundaries of the municipality. The trial court, apparently on the theory that notices must be published in a newspaper having a second-class postal privilege, thereby required the dual publication of the notices by reason of the fact that neither newspaper had a second-class mailing privilege in both of the counties in which the municipality exists. We are of the opinion that the use of the word "published" by the legislature, both in §§ 14-25-7, supra, and 10-2-2, supra, is not synonymous with the word "printed." Actually, even § 10-2-2, supra, so strongly relied upon by appellees, seems to use the two words in their proper sense. As is apparent from a reading of this section, the word "published" is used many times, whereas a distinction is made in two places in the section when the legislature used the words "printed and published," or "published and printed." Although this court has not had occation to pass upon this particular question, it has been considered by other courts in some of our sister states. The verbiage of the acts is different, and the courts of Montana and Georgia held that the legislative use of the word "published" really meant "printed," in that the legislative intent was to channel money back into the local areas from which taxes were collected, rather than giving notice to the residents of the area. See State ex rel. Vickers v. Board of Com'rs of Big Horn County, 1926, 77 Mont. 316, 250 P. 606; and Carter v. Land, 1932, 174 Ga. 811, 164 S.E. 205. *990 We note also that two California cases relied upon by appellees, In re Monrovia Evening Post, 1926, 199 Cal. 263, 248 P. 1017, and In re Covina Argus-Citizen, 1960, 177 Cal. App. 2d 315, 2 Cal. Rptr. 184, involved a statute which required that the notice be "printed and published." However, the opinion in In re Monrovia Evening Post, supra, makes it plain that the ruling was based upon a change of the California statute following decisions by the Supreme Court of California that a newspaper need not be printed within the geographical boundaries of a legal subdivision to be published within the same. See Stanwood v. Carson, 1915, 169 Cal. 640, 147 P. 562, and In re McDonald, 1921, 187 Cal. 158, 201 P. 110. Thus the California cases are not authority for appellees' position here, and actually In re Monrovia Evening Post, supra, specifically pointed out the ordinary difference between "publish" and "printed," but stated that the court was bound by the legislative pronouncement that the newspaper must be both printed and published in the legal subdivision involved. We are unable to imply a legislative intent as urged by appellees and as announced by the Montana and Georgia courts. Contrariwise, we are impressed by the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court in Lewis v. Tate, 1946, 210 Ark. 594, 197 S.W.2d 23, wherein the court concluded: and the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, in Daly v. Beery, 1920, 45 N.D. 287, 178 N.W. 104, wherein the court stated: Also, in Allen v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company (Mo. 1963), 368 S.W.2d 460, a case involving the interpretation of a contract rather than statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court of Missouri expressed quite clearly the distinction in the two words, and, at page 464, stated: See also Wolfe County Liquor Dispensary Ass'n v. Ingram, 1938, 272 Ky. 38, 113 S.W.2d 839, in which a similar contention as is here made, viz., that the word "published" means "printed," was rejected by the court, as follows: We are of the opinion that the intent of our legislature in using the word "published" in § 14-25-7, supra, was to give notice to the public by insertion in a newspaper of general circulation within the boundaries of the municipal corporation, regardless of where the newspaper is physically printed. After all, the aim of a statute requiring legal publications is so that the contents of the notice may be brought home to the public generally. See Pirie v. Kamps, 1951, 68 Wyo. 83, 229 P.2d 927. In answer to the argument that § 10-2-2, supra, requires publication in a newspaper entered under a second-class postal privilege in the county, we only need to say that we do not deem the provision mandatory as urged by appellee. After all, in determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory, a reasonable construction must be given rather than one which would render the statute absurd. Winston v. Vaughan (W.D.Okl. 1935), 11 F. Supp. 954. Generally, in considering whether a requirement of a statute is mandatory or directory, courts look to the subject matter, the importance of the requirement, and its relation to the general object intended to be secured by the act. Those directions in the statute which are not the essence of the things to be done are not commonly considered mandatory, particularly where, by failure to obey, no prejudice will result to those whose rights are protected by *992 the statute. See 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction, §§ 2803-4. See also Ross v. State Racing Commission, 1958, 64 N.M. 478, 330 P.2d 701; and Farmers' Development Co. v. Rayado Land &amp; Irrigation Co., 1923, 28 N.M. 357, 213 P. 202. As we have said, the purpose of the statute is to give the public the opportunity to read the legal publication this is the mandatory portion of the statute, and the provision for the second-class mailing privilege is of relatively small importance in relation to the general object intended by the act and is merely directory. The petition for the writ and the decision of the trial judge proceeded upon the theory that § 10-2-2, supra, must be literally applied to the facts present in the case at bar, i.e., publication must be made in both the Rio Grande Sun and the New Mexican, since neither has a second-class mailing privilege in both counties. Such a literal application of § 10-2-2, supra, to the factual situation present herein would defeat the purpose of the legislature in § 14-25-7, supra. The purpose of publication statutes is to give notice to the citizens (Pirie v. Kamps, supra), not to double the cost of publication; and this is particularly true when we consider that § 14-25-7, supra, contains an alternative method of giving notice if no newspaper is published within the limits, viz., by posting. The primary purpose of §§ 14-25-7 and 10-2-2 is to give notice to the citizens, with provisions relating to publication, printing, and mailing privileges referring merely to the method of carrying out the intent of the statutes, i.e., notice. To hold otherwise would be to allow the method to control the purpose of the statutes. Were we to adopt the position urged upon this court by the appellee, it would be contrary to the pronouncement made by this court in Cox v. City of Albuquerque, 1949, 53 N.M. 334, 207 P.2d 1017, where we stated: Thus, since mandamus is a remedy for the violation of a clear legal duty, and no such clear legal duty is here required of the officials of the Village of Espanola, it follows that the writ was improvidently issued and should be discharged. The village council had discretion to determine in which legal newspaper of general circulation within its confines the ordinances and notices must be printed. The judgment of the district court will be reversed, with direction to set aside its judgment and its writ of mandamus and to enter its order dismissing the cause. It is so ordered. NOBLE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.