Sandoval v. Albright

Decided February 25, 1908

New Mexico Supreme Court · decided 1908-02-25

before Ira A. Abbott, Associate Justice. If the plaintiff was ineligible to the office, he can not recover fees paid another incumbent who was not lawfully entitled to the office. There is no property in an office. Butler v. Pa., 10 How. 402; Stuhr v. Curran, 15 Vroom 181, 43 Am. Rep. 353; Auditor of Wayne Co. v. Benoit, 4 Am. Rep. 382; 23 A. & E. Enc. of Law 390; Mathews -,. Copiah County, 53 Miss. 715, 24 Am.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1935

1 state decisions

Relies on Territory of New Mexico ex rel. Ma. Sandoval v. Albright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1908-02-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION OF THE COURT.

POPE, J.

¶2(After stating the facts.) This is one of the fragments of a litigation which has been before this ■court in one form or another at almost every term, since 1904. The case at bar presents no features that have not been already fully considered and decided by this court. The power of the county commissioners to appoint Al-bright to the office of assessor was decided adversely to him. in Territory v. Albright, 78 Pac. 204, 12 N. M. 293. The eligibility of Sandoval to hold the office was decided favorably to Sandoval in the same case. The right of Sandoval, under these conditions, to recover the fees of the office, was settled in his favor, by the decision of this court in Sandoval v. Albright, No. 1190, 13 N. Mex. 64, decided January 13, 1908.

¶3The judgment is accordingly affirmed.