Court Opinion

ID: 6467612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-26 14:08:00.525674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:53:43.422829
License: Public Domain

POPE, C.' J.' [Concurring specially.] While agreeing with most of the opinion, I do not concur in the conclusion announced in the second paragraph. I am of opinion that the form of the petition for the election did not comply with the terms of the statute. The latter clearly requires that the petitioners must ask for the removal of the county seat to some other designated place. The petition to my mind asks simply for a vote on the proposition to change. A person opposing Carrizozo but desiring an election simply to settle the question between Carrizozo and Lincoln once for all, might with perfect consistency have signed the petition. Such a petition does not comply with the law and is not a valid initiation of the proceedings for an election. I concur, however, in the result upon the ground that the case is within the holding of the court this day announced in Torres v. Board of County Commissioners, that where the proceeding is practically an attempt to settle a county seat controversy the exclusive method is quo warranio. I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Wright concurs in these views. See Opinion rendered on rehearing, Gray et al v. Taylor et al, 16 N. M. Rep., and 118 Pac. 591.