| OCR Text |
Show 160 THE PUEBLO WATER RIGHT It is an admitted fact that the doctrine of Pueblo Rights as we understand and all the parties argue it is well recognized in the State of California. The parties agree that the question has not been determined in the State of New Mexico, although both parties seek to gain some comfort from two New Mexico cases which men- tion the doctrine [cited and discussed above]. * * * In neither case was any position taken by the Court on the doctrine. * * * We did not in either of the cases mentioned hold that the doctrine of Pueblo Rights was not applicable in New Mexico, but only that, under the facts before us, neither Town had such rights. * * * * As already stated, however, neither this case [Tularosa] nor that of New Mexico Products Co. v. New Mexico Power Co. may be cited with any justification by any party to this suit as sustaining a position taken by this Court on the Pueblo Rights doctrine. The Cartwright Case The Original Case There were two Cartwright cases. The second resulted in a decision that the holdings in the original action with respect to ownership of the waters in litigation were res judicata and not subject to further inquiry in a second suit claimed by the plaintiffs to be a continuation of the first. This will be mentioned below under "Subsequent Litigation." The discussion under the instant heading relates solely to the original Cartwright case.68 The original Cartwright decision was rendered December 12, 1958. Motion for rehearing was denied May 14, 1959. A second motion for rehearing and motions on a jurisdictional issue were denied September 3, 1959. Each order was made by a divided court on a vote of three to two. To each order the minority filed a long dissenting opinion.69 The action in the Cartwright case was brought by certain users of water from Gallinas River-on which the Mexican pueblo of Las Vegas was situated-against the Public Service Company of New Mexico, which was engaged in furnishing water from this stream to the Town and City of Las Vegas under a county franchise. The Town of Las Vegas intervened. On April 6, 1835, the Mexican Government established the pueblo and made a community colonization grant to it. The Town and City of Las Vegas are American successors to the Mexican pueblo. The trial court decided that the Town and City of Las Vegas succeeded to ownership of the pueblo water right 68 This discussion of the original Cartwright case is based chiefly on the author's article, "Pueblo Water Rights in the West," 38 Tex. Law Rev. 748 (1960). 69 Cartwright v. Public Serv. Co. ofN. Mex., 66 N. Mex. 64, 343 Pac. (2d) 654 (1958). For a critical analysis of the decisions, see Clark, R. E., "The Pueblo Rights Doctrine in New Mexico," 35 N. Mex. Historical Rev. 265 (1960). |
