Catron v. Board of County Commissioners

5 N.M. 203
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 25, 1889
DocketNo. 351
StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.M. 203 (Catron v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Catron v. Board of County Commissioners, 5 N.M. 203 (N.M. 1889).

Opinion

Brinker, J.

On the third day of November, 1887, the plaintiff in error, as complainant, filed in the court below the following bill against the defendants in error:

“To the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico and Judge of the First Judicial District Court thereof: Tour orator, Thomas B. Catron, a resident of the county of Santa Fe, in the territory of New Mexico, in his own behalf, as well as in behalf of all other taxpayers, owners of property situate in said county, interested in obtaining the relief herein sought, who shall •contribute to the expense of this suit, brings this, his bill of complaint, against the board of county commissioners of the county of Santa Fe, Francisco Chavez, ■sheriff, and ex officio collector of said county, and .Nicholas Garcia, treasurer of the said county, all residents of the said county. And thereupon your orator complains and shows that your orator is, and for upwards of ten years last past he has been, a resident and taxpayer of the said county of Santa Fe; that he owns at least as much property subject to taxation in said county as any other individual taxpayer of the said county whatever; that among the property subject •to taxation owned by your orator in the said county is all that certain tract or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon, situate in the city of Santa Fe, on the corner formed by the intersection of the easterly side of the plaza of Santa Fe with the southerly side of Palace avenue, and extending upward of one hundred feet along the easterly side of the said plaza, and upward cf one hundred feet on the southerly side of Palace avenue, and containing a superficial area exceeding one hundred thousand square feet; that your orator has always been ready and willing to pay whatever taxes have heretofore been lawfully levied or assessed against his property in the sáid county, including the tract of land above described, and has always hitherto paid all taxes thereon which he was lawfully bound to pay; and he is now ready and willing to pay whatever taxes may be lawfully leviable and collectible against him or his said property.
“And your orator further shows that heretofore, to wit, on the twentieth day of July, A. D. 1887, the board of county commissioners of the said county levied the taxes for the year 1887 upon the taxable property situate and taxable in the said county, and fixed the rate of taxation upon such levy as follows: For the county fund, twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessed valuation of such taxable property; for the territorial fund, fifty cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the school fund, thirty cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on funded county bonds, seventeen cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on county bonds voted and issued in aid of the Texas, Santa Fe & Northern Railroad Company, thirty cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on county bond's voted and issued in aid of the New Mexico & Southern Pacific Railroad Company, thirty cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on the courthouse warrants, hereinafter more particularly described, thirteen cents on each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on capítol building bonds, five cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on penitentiary bonds, five cents for each one hundred dollars aforesaid; for the interest on capítol contingent bonds, one cent for each one hundred dollars aforesaid — which levy, your orator avers, upon his information and belief, includes the levy for county purposes of the said county of a tax in excess of one fourth, of one per cent on the assessed value of the taxable property taxable in the. said county, over and above so much of the said total levy as was so levied as or by the general taxation.
“And your orator further shows that on the said twentieth day of July, A. D. 1887, the existing indebtedness of the said county of Santa Fe greatly exceeded in amount five per cent of the assessed value of the property assessable and .taxable within the said county, as found and ascertained by the last assessment for territorial and county taxes made in the said county, being the assessment upon which the said levy was based.
“And your orator further shows that during the year 1886, and in each and every part of the said year, the said county of Santa Fe was indebted in an amount largely exceeding five per cent of the assessed value of all property assessable and taxable within the said county, as found and ascertained by the assessment for territorial and county taxes made in the said county in the year 1885, as well as the said year 1886; and the said county ever since has been, and still is, indebted in an amount greatly exceeding five per cent of the-property assessable and taxable therein; and that the said county indebtedness so existing throughout the year 1886, and ever since, in excess of five per cent of the value of the taxable property within the said county, is, and during all and every part of the said period has been, in excess of five per cent aforesaid, without regarding, calculating, or including the indebtedness or any part of the indebtedness assumed to be created, as hereinafter stated, for or in ’respect of the erection or completion of the courthouse hereinafter mentioned,
“And your orator further shows that the said board of county commissioners, at a meeting thereof held in the county of Santa Fe on the seventh day of June, A. JD. 1886, approved and adopted a resolution in the words and figures following, to wit: ‘Whereas, in the opinion of the county .commissioners of Santa Fe county, it appears necessary that the United States and territorial district courts be provided with more-suitable and comfortable quarters than those now used for that purpose; and, whereas, the counties of San Miguel and Colfax have more commodious and comfortable-quarters; and, whereas, it might appear in the-opinion of the judges that, owing to the foregoing facts, the United States and district courts and headquarters of the district judge be removed to Las Yegas or Springer. Therefore, be it resolved, that the chairman of the board of county commissioners of Santa. Fe county be and is hereby authorized to advertise for plans for a courthouse to be erected in the city and county of Santa Fe; said building to cost not exceeding $50,000; and plan to be filed at a date not later than July 1, 1886, at the office of the board of county commissioners. And at the said meeting the said board ordered advertisement to be made for plans and. specifications for such contemplated building.’
“And your orator further shows that thereafter, on .the twenty-ninth day of June, A. D. 1886, the said-board of county commissioners, at another meeting-by them held in the county aforesaid, adopted a certain preamble and resolutions, by which preamble the said board, pretending to recite the said proceedings had as-aforesaid, at the said meeting of June 7, 1886, falsely-made it to appear that at the said meeting of June 7, 1886, it was deemed necessai'y that the said board of county commissioners of Santa Fe county advertise for- and receive, in the usual manner, bids and proposals, for the erection at the county seat of Santa Fe county, and at such location as should be designated by the said board, of a courthouse to.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
82 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1873)
Crampton v. Zabriskie
101 U.S. 601 (Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.M. 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catron-v-board-of-county-commissioners-nm-1889.