{ "id": 2768336, "name": "MOBILE AMERICA, INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDOVAL COUNTY COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Village of Corrales, a municipality, Intervenor-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Mobile America, Inc. v. Sandoval County Commission", "decision_date": "1974-01-25", "docket_number": "No. 9632", "first_page": "794", "last_page": "796", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "85 N.M. 794" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "518 P.2d 774" } ], "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": "74 N.M. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2797176 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.M. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2804135 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/77/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N.M. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1560829 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/48/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5362726 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N.M. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841409 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/57/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N.M. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566835 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/44/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N.M. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5345959 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/64/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2737677 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5328591 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 N.M. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1590382 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/60/0226-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 418, "char_count": 6518, "ocr_confidence": 0.725, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.488517139211564e-08, "percentile": 0.5181433357697688 }, "sha256": "3cb3d573061e7f34626b8790e44ffd0ebbfb7d06769c04f874e8b350f8c83ece", "simhash": "1:ac8d503394de1de3", "word_count": 1020 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "OMAN and MONTOYA, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "MOBILE AMERICA, INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDOVAL COUNTY COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Village of Corrales, a municipality, Intervenor-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nMARTINEZ, Justice.\nPlaintiff (appellant) filed its petition for peremptory writ of mandamus on April 20, 1972 in the District Court of Sandoval County. It sought to compel the defendant, Sandoval County Commission (appellees), pursuant to \u00a7 14-19-6, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.VoI. 3, 1968), to approve the subdivision plat of \u201cJade Park Corrales,\u201d an area within Sandoval County consisting of 137.04 acres. Village of Corrales (intervenor-appellee) intervened in the suit as an additional party defendant and claimed that the subdivision plat must also receive its approval, as a municipality, pursuant to \u00a7 14-19-7, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.VoI. 3, 1968). A hearing was held on the merits and at the conclusion of appellant\u2019s case, intervenor-appellee moved for dismissal, which was granted by the court. After requested findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by appellant and intervenor-appellee, the court entered judgment dismissing appellant\u2019s petition with prejudice. It found that intervenor-appellee was at all times an incorporated municipality, that appellant\u2019s proposed subdivision plat was within the platting jurisdiction of both appellee and intervenor-appellee, and concluded that since appellant had not submitted its plat to intervenor-appellee, appellant had no standing to bring this suit. It is from this judgment that appellant makes its appeal.\nA preliminary statement concerning this case is necessary because we disapprove the procedures followed by the court. These procedures fail to comply with mandamus proceedings as established in \u00a7\u00a7 22-12-6 through 22-12-11, N.M.S.A.1953. However, we are considering the appeal only because the parties consented to a trial on the merits of the issues presented by the allegations of the petition for a writ of mandamus and a general denial of these allegations by appellees.\nAppellant\u2019s main point for review is that the alleged Village of Corrales had no jurisdiction over the subdivision plat submitted by the appellant to the Sandoval County Commission because it was not in existence at the time appellant presented its subdivision plat to the Sandoval County Commission for approval. Therefore, since only the approval of the Sandoval County Commission was required by statute, and since that approval was merely a ministerial act, then a peremptory writ of mandamus should have been issued by the Court.\nWe disagree.\nOrdinarily, mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right against one having a clear legal duty to perform an act necessary to the enjoyment of such a right. Laumbach v. Board Of County Commissioners, 60 N.M. 226, 290 P.2d 1067 (1955). This means that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a statutory duty only where it is clear and undisputable. Witt v. Hartman, 82 N.M. 170, 477 P.2d 608 (1970). Generally, mandamus will not lie to control the discretion or judgment of a public officer. Conston v. New Mexico St. Bd. Of Probation & Parole, 79 N.M. 385, 444 P.2d 296 (1968); Ross v. State Racing Commission, 64 N.M. 478, 330 P.2d 701 (1958). However, mandamus will lie to require a public officer to perform a ministerial duty, Wilson v. Gonzales, 44 N.M. 599, 106 P.2d 1093 (1940). A ministerial duty is that which does not require either the exercise of official discretion or judgment. Kiddy v. Board of County Com\u2019rs. of Eddy County, 57 N.M. 145, 255 P.2d 678 (1953).\nEven assuming, but not deciding, that Vill\u00e1ge of Corrales was not in existence as a municipality at the time appellant\u2019s subdivision plat was submitted to appellees, and, therefore intervenor-appellee\u2019s approval was not required, \u00a7 14-19-6, supra, does not create merely a ministerial duty on the part of the appellee. Section 14-19-6, supra, reads as follows:\n\u201cBefore a plat of any subdivision within the jurisdiction of a county is filed in the office of the county clerk, the plat shall be approved by the board of county commissioners of the county wherein the proposed subdivision lies. The board of county commissioners shall not approve and sign a plat unless the:\nA. Proposed streets conform to adjoining streets;\nB. Streets are defined by permanent monuments to the satisfaction of the board of county commissioners; and\nC. Boundary of the subdivision is defined by permanent monuments.\u201d (Emphasis added)\nIn construing a statute, we must give the words used their ordinary meaning. Winston v. New Mexico State Police Board, 80 N.M. 310, 454 P.2d 967 (1969). We are unable to discover any legislative intent which requires appellee to approve any subdivision plat which merely fulfills the aforementioned three requirements. These are minimum requirements and leave some discretion and judgment with the county commission. The statute above does not require appellee to approve the subdivision plat if the three requirements above are fulfilled, but simply requires their fulfillment prior to any subsequent approval by the appellee. In addition, \u00a7 14-19-2, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, 1968) states that \u201c * * *. The plat shall refer to permanent monuments and shall accurately describe each lot, number each lot in progression, give its dimensions and the dimensions of all land dedicated for public use or for the use of the owners of lots fronting or adjacent to the land. * * *\u201d These requirements are clearly not mentioned in \u00a7 14-19-6, supra, as quoted above, and are further embodied in the New Mexico Subdivision Act, \u00a7 70-5-3, N.M-S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 10, Pt. 2, Supp.1973). The statutory provisions quoted above do contemplate criteria for consideration by the County Commission other than simply the three criteria enumerated in \u00a7 14-19-6, supra.\nWe have long recognized that if a trial court\u2019s judgment can be sustained upon correct legal principles, it will not be reversed merely because the reasoning or conclusion of law is erroneous. Atma v. Munoz, 48 N.M. 114, 146 P.2d 631 (1944). See also, Tsosie v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company, 77 N.M. 671, 427 P.2d 29 (1967); Albuquerque National Bank v. Johnson, 74 N.M. 69, 390 P.2d 657 (1964). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nOMAN and MONTOYA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTINEZ, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Oliver Burton Cohen, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "R. Russell Rager, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "518 P.2d 774\nMOBILE AMERICA, INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDOVAL COUNTY COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Village of Corrales, a municipality, Intervenor-Appellee.\nNo. 9632.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJan. 25, 1974.\nOliver Burton Cohen, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nR. Russell Rager, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0794-01", "first_page_order": 856, "last_page_order": 858 }