{
  "id": 1551477,
  "name": "CARSON RECLAMATION DIST. v. VIGIL, State Auditor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carson Reclamation Dist. v. Vigil",
  "decision_date": "1926-05-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 3003",
  "first_page": "402",
  "last_page": "404",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.M. 402"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "246 P. 907"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 274",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 P. 845",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N. M. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4695143
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/18/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 P. 980",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N. M. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        208887
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/17/0557-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 P. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N. M. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4673139
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/12/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 P. 1021",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N. M. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4714943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/20/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Stat. 557",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Stat. 484",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3300,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7606498251849895e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8335404882678488
    },
    "sha256": "5b6d3317711ff2ec81cabdc54679d8c19ffde408d3e410ea833ca4151fd1a6de",
    "simhash": "1:391ae79db6bea9d1",
    "word_count": 582
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:31.532037+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER, C. J. and BICKLEY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CARSON RECLAMATION DIST. v. VIGIL, State Auditor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT\nWATSON, J.\nAppellant (plaintiff below) alleged -that it is an irrigation district, organized under chapter 41, Laws of 1919, and by section 12 of that act directed to employ a competent hydraulic engineer, but unable to do so for lack of funds. It further alleged that it -made demand upon the state auditor to draw his warrant for the sum of $15,000 upon the \u201cpermanent reservoirs for irrigation purposes income fund,\u201d in which fund there is a large sum of money, to enable it to employ .such engineer, and that the auditor (appellee) refused so to do. Mandamus was prayed to compel the auditor to draw such warrant. A demur - -rer was interposed on the ground that no cause of action was stated in the complaint. The demurrer was \u25a0sustained and judgment entered dismissing the cause.\nThe fund on which appellant seeks to draw is the \u2022depository of the income from the land grant made by \u2022Congress by the Ferguson Act (Act June 21, 1898, 30 Stat. 484), and confirmed and impressed with a trust by the Enabling Act (Act June 20, 1910, 36 Stat. 557). The use of the fund is limited by Enabling Act, \u00a7 10, and by Const, art. 21, \u00a7 9, to \u201cthe establishment of permanent water reservoirs for irrigating purposes.\u201d Appellant urges that it- is for such purposes that it re\u25a0sorts to the fund, and that, therefore, although the Legislature has. made no appropriation from the fund for appellant\u2019s use, none such is necessary to authorize appellee to comply with its demands; that, under his large statutory powers, the auditor may determine the .amount properly to be devoted to appellant\u2019s purposes, taking evidence, if necessary, as to the reasonable requirements of the case. It is urged that Constitution, art. 4, \u00a7 30, prohibiting pajunents from the treasury except upon legislative appropriation, is not a defense, citing Dorman v. Sargent, 20 N. M. 413, 150 P. 1021.\nEven if the foregoing propositions were seriously to be entertained, there is a fatal weakness in appellants case. No statutory or legal duty is shown to be cast upon the state auditor. It- is only claimed that he has the power. If he has such vast discretionary power as claimed by appellant, it is not within the province of the courts to direct its exercise by mandamus. Only a clear legal right can be so enforced. High\u2019s Extraordinary Legal Remedies, \u201cMandamus,\u201d \u00a7 10; Regents v. Vaughn, 12 N. M. 333, 78 P. 51; Seward v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 17 N. M. 557, 131 P. 980, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242; State v. Marron, 18 N. M. 426, 137 P. 845, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 274.\nThe court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. The judgment is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nPARKER, C. J. and BICKLEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank W. Clancy, of 'Santa F\u00e9, for appellant.",
      ".Milton J. Helmick, Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3003.\nMay 12, 1926.]\nCARSON RECLAMATION DIST. v. VIGIL, State Auditor.\n[246 Pac. 907.]\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT\nOnly clear legal rights are enforceable by mandamus.\n( 11 38CJ p. 582 n. 71; p. 590 n. 36; p. 593 n. 49; p. 758 n. 64, 65.\nAppeal from District Court, Santa F\u00e9 County, Hollo;man, Judge.\nMandamus by the Carson Reclamation District .-.against Juan N. Vigil, State Auditor. From a judgment sustaining defendant\u2019s demurrer to the complaint .and dismissing the cause, plaintiff appeals.\nAffirmed.\nFrank W. Clancy, of 'Santa F\u00e9, for appellant.\n.Milton J. Helmick, Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0402-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 418
}