{ "id": 8841786, "name": "KNOLLENBERG v. STATE BANK OF ALAMOGORDO et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Knollenberg v. State Bank of Alamogordo", "decision_date": "1936-03-10", "docket_number": "No. 4025", "first_page": "284", "last_page": "287", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "40 N.M. 284" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "58 P.2d 1195" } ], "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": "1 A.L.R. 720", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 P. 906", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 N.M. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4726524 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/22/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 N.E. 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ind.App. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind. App.", "case_ids": [ 2550907 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind-app/69/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 P. 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.M. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557971 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 N.M. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575395 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/37/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 L.Ed. 560", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 S.Ct. 37", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 U.S. 661", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 P. 1077", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 1557971, 1557917 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0345-01", "/nm/35/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 N.M. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557917 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0427-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 487, "char_count": 8399, "ocr_confidence": 0.712, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.872980358659777e-08, "percentile": 0.4599032607692572 }, "sha256": "18be144cd3b303a5141ea8a86d8be73ac891c57038eb50eb7020dd37cfdd4d53", "simhash": "1:b32f546d40d54a73", "word_count": 1405 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:32.968106+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.", "BRICE, J., did not participate." ], "parties": [ "KNOLLENBERG v. STATE BANK OF ALAMOGORDO et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SADLER, Chief Justice.\nThe plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing her fourth amended complaint following a refusal to plead further upon entry of an order sustaining defendant\u2019s demurrer to said complaint. The relief sought is cancellation of a tax deed to certain real estate.\nThe, case has been twice before us on direct appeals from separate judgments, one for and one against the plaintiff. Knollenberg v. State Bank of Alamogordo, 35 N.M. 427, 299 P. 1077, writ of cer-tiorari denied by United States Supreme Court 284 U.S. 661, 52 S.Ct. 37, 76 L.Ed. 560; Id., 37 N.M. 441, 24 P.(2d) 284. In addition, a judgment of the district court \u25a0of Otero county awarding peremptory writ of mandamus against' the treasurer of said county to compel acceptance of tendered tax money in redemption of the real estate involved from tax sale was reviewed in Knollenberg v. Mitchell, 35 N.M. 345, 297 P. 145. The judgment appealed from was reversed, with directions to discharge the writ because the tender was untimely.\nOur decision on the. first appeal of the case now before us reversed a judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor. We held that an effort to. redeem the property, considered effectual by the trial court, was untimely; that other claimed irregularities did not touch the essentials of taxation; and \u201cthat in the situation in which we found plaintiff, the only successful attack she could have made on the tax deed was that the property conveyed thereby was not, at the time the taxes were-laid thereon, subject to taxation or that the taxes had been paid.\u201d\nThe mandate directed reinstatement of the cause on the docket of the trial court, the sustaining of defendant\u2019s demurrer, \u201cand for such further proceedings as may be proper,\u201d etc. Following reinstatement of the cause on the docket, the trial, court entered its order sustaining the demurrer to second amended complaint of plaintiff with leave to plead further within twenty days. Her next complaint was designated \u201cfirst amended complaint after the mandate of the Supreme Court directing the demurrer herein filed by defendant be sustained.\u201d\nThe defendant thereupon filed its \u201cmotion to strike fourth amended complaint and for final judgment.\u201d Due to a certain amendment by way of interlineation, the last complaint filed in numerical order constituted the fourth amended complaint and was so treated by the defendant and the court. The grounds of this motion to strike are set out in full in the report of the second appeal. 37 N.M. 441, 24 P.(2d) 284, 285. The motion was sustained and judgment rendered on the pleadings in defendant\u2019s favor.\nAs pointed out in the opinion, on appeal from that judgment there appeared for the first time in the stricken fourth amended complaint an allegation (not occurring in any of the previous complaints) of payment of the taxes for nonpayment of which the property in question had been sold. Such allegation appears as subpara-graph IV of the so-called \u201csecond count\u201d of plaintiff\u2019s fourth amended complaint and reads as follows: \u201c(b) that it (tax deed) is based upon an alleged sale for taxes for the year 1920, and said taxes and all years thereafter were paid by this plaintiff or her agents.\u201d'\nThe apparent basis of the trial court\u2019s action in striking the complaint was, as we pointed out, that allegations of the fourth amended complaint as a whole were substantially a repetition of allegations which theretofore had been fully considered by the court. We held this was not true as to the allegation of payment and that said allegation was not subject to the objection that it introduced an entirely new and different cause of action. We said: \u201cThe very thing which we found [on the former appeal] vitally absent, i. e., \u2018that the taxes have been paid,\u2019 appellant (plaintiff) now alleges.\u201d\nIn disposing of the case we said:\n\u201cOur holding on the first appeal in the case at bar following the decisions in a. group of tax cases, therein cited, while just, resulted in pronounced misfortune to \u25a0 the taxpayer before the court. If she had paid the taxes, the enforcement of the payment of which gave rise to the tax deed in , question, she ought in justice be allowed to \u2022 prove it, unless rules of procedure plainly and unavoidably preclude her effort to - do so.\n\u201cViewing the whole situation, we think the court abused its discretion in permitting \u2022 \u2018no further complaint * * * to be filed\u2019 and in rendering judgment on the pleadings.\n\u201cFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded,. with directions to restore the stricken. amended complaint to the files, and to proceed further in the cause as may be proper,. and it is so ordered.\u201d\nMandate having duly issued and the-cause being reinstated upon the docket of said court, the defendant interposed a demurrer to said fourth amended complaint,. challenging its sufficiency generally as stating a cause of action and specifically upon seventeen separate and distinct grounds.. The eleventh specific ground is as follows:. \u201cThat it is not alleged that the taxes involved had been or were paid prior to \u2022 rendition of tax judgment mentioned by plaintiff, or prior to sale of the property-pursuant thereto.\u201d\nThe basis of this objection is found im the language of section 435 of chapter 133,,, N. M. Session Laws of 1921, protecting; tax titles and tax sales against attack \u201cexcept upon the ground that the taxes * * * had been paid before the sale, or that the property was not subject to taxation.\u201d The court sustained the demurrer as to the eleventh paragraph or objection and overruled it as to all other specific objections. The plaintiff declining to amend and standing on the ruling, her fourth amended complaint was dismissed and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.\nThe decisive question is whether, in reversing and remanding the cause on the second appeal, we necessarily held plaintiff\u2019s fourth amended complaint to state a cause of action. We hold that we did. While the defendant\u2019s motion to strike said last-amended complaint (in the nature of a demurrer) did not raise the specific objection to the allegation of payment later advanced in its demurrer thereto, nevertheless there was within our decision of the point before us an implied holding that the allegation of payment would warrant proof, if tendered, of a tax payment sufficient to defeat the title eventuating in the tax deed, namely, a payment of taxes for the year 1920 made prior to sale. The trial court was in error in holding otherwise.\n\u201cWhere the questions presented on a second or subsequent appeal were necessarily involved in a former appeal, and where the conclusion declared could not have been reached, without expressly or impliedly deciding such questions, the decision on such former appeal rules the case throughout all subsequent stages. [Citations omitted.] * * * The determination of the sufficiency of a pleading on appeal comes within the rule, and any decision so made in that regard will be adhered to on all subsequent appeals, unless such pleading has been amended so as to materially change its character.\u2019.\u2019 City of New Albany v. Lyons, 69 Ind.App. 478, 118 N.E. 587, 589. See, also, State ex rel. Garcia v. Board of County Com\u2019rs, 22 N.M. 562, 166 P. 906, 1 A.L.R. 720, and annotation at page 725, on doctrine generally of \u201cLaw of the Case.\u201d\nThe chronological history of this litigation as we have set it out hereinabove truly demonstrates the wisdom and expediency of the doctrine just mentioned. There must be an end to litigation at some time. The judgment in, this case is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court of Otero county, with directions to set aside its judgment and to overrule the eleventh paragraph of defendant\u2019s demurrer to fourth amended complaint, and with a further direction to permit framing of the single issue of payment of taxes for the year 1920 prior to the tax sale out of which defendant\u2019s title arises and to render judgment according to the proof on said issue.\nIt is so ordered.\nHUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.\nBRICE, J., did not participate.", "type": "majority", "author": "SADLER, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Fred C. Knollenberg, of El Paso, Tex., for appellant.", "Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "58 P.(2d) 1195\nKNOLLENBERG v. STATE BANK OF ALAMOGORDO et al.\nNo. 4025.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 10, 1936.\nRehearing Denied June 30, 1936.\nFred C. Knollenberg, of El Paso, Tex., for appellant.\nQuincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees." }, "file_name": "0284-01", "first_page_order": 308, "last_page_order": 311 }