{ "id": 5339387, "name": "Mrs. Manuel APODACA, formerly Trina Moya, et al., Plaintlffs-Appellants, v. The TOWN OF TOME LAND GRANT, a corporation, a/k/a Tome Land and Improvement Company, a corporation, a/k/a the Tome Land Grant, a community land grant, and all the Shareholders Thereof, and Horizon Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Apodaca v. Town of Tome Land Grant", "decision_date": "1971-08-23", "docket_number": "No. 9139", "first_page": "55", "last_page": "56", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 N.M. 55" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "488 P.2d 105" } ], "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": "72 N.M. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2856445 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5377654 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 N.M. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1589278 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/59/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N.M. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8504038 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/76/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 P. 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 N.M. 685", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8843441 ], "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/27/0685-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 335, "char_count": 4675, "ocr_confidence": 0.671, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08, "percentile": 0.2886602655212717 }, "sha256": "d4f075a957852fb2e76e2ad47798f014ac1946791feeb4458ca17a1426ccb168", "simhash": "1:b3ebb005218dc58d", "word_count": 788 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "COMPTON, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Mrs. Manuel APODACA, formerly Trina Moya, et al., Plaintlffs-Appellants, v. The TOWN OF TOME LAND GRANT, a corporation, a/k/a Tome Land and Improvement Company, a corporation, a/k/a the Tome Land Grant, a community land grant, and all the Shareholders Thereof, and Horizon Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nOMAN, Justice.\nThe trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, except as to plaintiff, Floyd Gurule. We reverse.\nBy the first cause of action of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs attacked the validity of a judgment entered in Cause No. 6492 on the docket of the District Court of Valencia County and sought a determination of their claimed rights in the common lands of the Town of Tome Land Grant, or in the proceeds from the sale of said lands. By the second and third counts of their complaint they sought equitable relief in the nature of restraining orders to prevent the distribution of the funds from the sale of the lands. This equitable relief was granted and the funds are presently in the hands of a trustee appointed for this purpose by the court.\nThe records in both this cause and Cause No. 6492 are before us on this appeal. In addition to the complaint in this cause, plaintiffs also filed a \u201cMotion in Support of Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction\u201d in Cause No. 6492. The matters contained in and the relief sought by this motion are substantially the same as alleged in and sought by the first cause of action of the second amended complaint in the present suit. In fact, plaintiffs filed in both suits a common \u201cMotion for Joinder for Purposes of Hearing\u201d by which they sought to have the two suits joined for hearing the issues raised by the \u201cMotion in Support of Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction\u201d filed in Cause No. 6492 and \u201cCount I of the Second Amended Complaint filed in Cause No. 14849.\u201d One of the grounds asserted for the joinder was: \u201cThat the issues and the evidence bearing thereon will be identical in most respects.\u201d This motion is still pending.\nThe trial court sustained the motion to dismiss the complaint, except as to plaintiff, Floyd Gurule, upon the ground that it \u201cconstitutes a collateral attack upon the judgment in Cause No. 6492 * * The complaint as to Mr. Gurule was not dismissed because he had not been named as a party in Cause No. 6492.\nWe need not decide whether the trial court was correct in determining this was a collateral attack on the judgment in Cause No. 6492. The case law on this point as announced by this court does not appear to be entirely consistent in all respects. See Bowers v. Brazell, 27 N.M. 685, 205 P. 715 (1922); Barela v. Lopez, 76 N.M. 632, 417 P.2d 441 (1966). However, the later cases clearly suggest that under the definitions of direct and collateral attacks adopted therein, the present suit would fall within the definition of a collateral attack as held by the trial court. See Barela v. Lopez, supra; Lucus v. Ruckman, 59 N.M. 504, 287 P.2d 68 (1955).\nHowever, the record shows, and it is conceded, that at least one of the named plaintiffs in the present suit, other than Mr. Gurule, was not named as a party in Cause No. 6492, and, as shown above, the complaint sought not only to have the judgment in Cause No. 6492 declared void, but sought other relief, including the equitable relief which was granted. In defendants\u2019 \u201cResponse to Temporary Restraining Order,\u201d the first issue- presented was \u201cThat-Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.\u201d This issue was apparently resolved against defendants, since the restraining order was made permanent after a hearing on the issues. For these reasons the complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Generally, as to the function to be performed by a motion under Rule 12(b) (6), Rules of Civil Procedure [\u00a7 21-1-1(12) (b) (6), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4 1970)], and the circumstances under which the motion may properly be granted, see 2A, Moore\u2019s Federal Practice, \u00a7 12.08, at 2244 (2d ed. 1968) ; Rubenstein v. Weil, 75 N.M. 562, 408 P.2d 140 (1965); Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 72 N.M. 322, 383 P.2d 571 (1963).\nThe order dismissing the second amended complaint should be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate it upon the docket.\nIt is so ordered.\nCOMPTON, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "OMAN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Solomon & Roth, Santa Fe, Lorenzo E. Tapia, Albuquerque, for appellants.", "Ahern, Montgomery & Albert, Albuquerque, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "488 P.2d 105\nMrs. Manuel APODACA, formerly Trina Moya, et al., Plaintlffs-Appellants, v. The TOWN OF TOME LAND GRANT, a corporation, a/k/a Tome Land and Improvement Company, a corporation, a/k/a the Tome Land Grant, a community land grant, and all the Shareholders Thereof, and Horizon Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 9139.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 23, 1971.\nSolomon & Roth, Santa Fe, Lorenzo E. Tapia, Albuquerque, for appellants.\nAhern, Montgomery & Albert, Albuquerque, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0055-01", "first_page_order": 181, "last_page_order": 182 }