Court Opinion

ID: 9866536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 13:11:55.524209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:58.223012
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING In an elaborate brief and an oral argument appellees have questioned our conclusion that the individual plaintiffs were qualified suitors. They have somewhat misconceived the basis of it, and we have thought that a further word might be useful. We did not overlook the facts that the “town” of Tecoolte has no power to raise revenue by taxation, and that the plaintiffs are not taxpaying citizens of it. We did not consider this a mere application of the established doctrine of the right of a taxpayer under certain circumstances to question in equity the disposition of municipal property. Manifestly we have made a new application of the principles in which that doctrine originated. The community land grant with which we now deal is an anomaly among corporations. While we have termed it a quasi municipal corporation, it is in some respects more like a private corporation. Its principal, if not its only, function is to hold title to and manage its common lands; which, by applying the rule, of strict construction of an exemption, this court has held to be taxable. State v. Board of Trustees of Las Vegas, 28 N. M. 237, 210 P. 101. We intend no modification of what has been laid down in earlier decisions regarding taxpayers’ suits in general. But here we meet a new situation. 'We have an alleged wrong affecting the property of this corporation. If it were a private corporation, it would be a proper occasion for a stockholder’s suit. If it were a municipal corporation, it would permit of a taxpayer’s suit. It is neither. Both stockholders’ and taxpayers’ suits are based upon some interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and upon the refusal of the corporation itself to proceed. In the one case, though legal title rests in the corporate entity, equity recognizes a beneficial pro rata interest represented by each share of stock. In the other case, the interest is not so plain, but the status of taxpayer has been found a convenient indicium of it. Neither explanation fits this case. Yet we have an alleged wrong for which equity cannot well refuse a remedy. While established theory does not include this case, underlying principle and practical considerations point to the conclusion we have announced. This, of course, implies that the owner of lands within the grant has some beneficial interest in the common lands. While appellees deny this proposition, we cannot doubt it. That such interest cannot be fitted into any existing classification is not conclusive against it. Many difficult problems have arisen from the slow and gradual implanting of a common-law jurisprudence upon a civil law territory and population. The courts could’ not reject rights or institutions as nonexistent, because they had not as yet been translated into terms of the common law. With common-law machinery, under the direction of a bar and bench bred to the common law, it has been necessary to enforce rights and recognize institutions unknown to that system. Where technical interpretation and reasoning must have failed, practical administration has found the way. ■The “town” of Tecolote was here when the United States troops took possession. It was recognized by the Congress more than thirty years before the common law was here adopted as the rule of practice and decision. Its transformation from a Mexican quasi municipal corporation (U. S. v. Sandoval, 167 U. S. 278, 17 S. Ct. 868, 42 L. Ed. 168) to a New Mexico corporation, is difficult to trace either historically or legally. We do not attempt the task. The process is probably not yet complete. Nevertheless, we cannot but entertain the view that the owners of allotted lands within the grant have such an interest in the common lands that it would be a backward step if equity should deny them the rights of suitors in cases in which taxpayers in municipalities enjoy those rights. The motion for rehearing is accordingly denied. BICKLEY, C. J., and SIMMS, J., concur. CATRON and PARKER, JJ., did not participate.