Court Opinion

ID: 9601208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:39:35.200247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:55.951599
License: Public Domain

SADLER, Justice. I concur in the order of the court denying the motion for rehearing. Furthermore, it is not out of place for me to add, even at this late day, that I saw nothing to criticize in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Coors in -the opinion heretofore filed in this case wherein he discusses the cases of Yates v. Hawkins, 46 N.M. 249, 126 P.2d 476; Langhurst v. Langhurst, 49 N.M. 329, 164 P.2d 204; and Sanchez v. New Mexico State Tax Commission, 51 N.M. 154, 180 P.2d 246. See, also, recent case of Chavez v. Chavez, 56 N.M. 393, 244 P.2d 781. Accordingly, there is no disagreement on my part with, the conclusions drawn by him in his opinion near the close of the discussion of the three cases first mentioned above, to-w-it: “While there may be some differences and likewise some similarities in the right of redemption and the right of repurchase granted by our statutes as discussed in Yates v. Hawkins, supra, and Langhurst v. Langhurst, supra, we believe both rights may be assigned, inherited or devised. “Both statutes have a fundamental common purpose which is.to grant or afford relief to delinquent taxpayers who have lost or are about to lose their property. Such statutes should be liberally construed in favor of the right to redeem and the right to repurchase.” The foregoing observations are recorded to clarify some uncertainty otherwise likely to arise from the fact that when the opinion of Mr. Justice Coors was filed herein, my concurrence was noted as in the result only.