OCR Text |
Show 168 THE PUEBLO WATER RIGHT view of this, it may be questioned whether, or the extent to which, individuals or groups along a New Mexico stream before 1958 were aware that some group among them might, solely by reason of its fortuitous establishment as a pueblo, successfully claim in the distant future all the waters of the stream, without compensation to any of them. Introduction of the pueblo rights doctrine-dispensing with the requirement of compensation (as discussed in the preceding sub topic)-into New Mexico jurisprudence at this late date involves considerations of public welfare. This is particularly true if the supreme court goes on in future decisions to actually apply the principle of unlimited expansion.90 Water is no less the lifeblood of a small farming community or single establishment than of a growing city. It may be questioned whether the taking by municipalities of valuable water rights of others-rights that may have been exercised for decades or even for generations under the long-established principle of priority of appropriation- without paying for them, bears out the New Mexico Supreme Court's observation that in the pueblo rights doctrine there is seen the elevation of the public good over the claim of a private right. Subsequent Litigation The Second Cartwright Case Plaintiffs having failed in the former action91 instituted a separate action against the same defendant alleging that the grant from Mexico or Spain was made to the "Town of Las Vegas Grant" and not to the "Town of Las Vegas" as determined in the former case.92 The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the statute93 providing for continuation of a first action in a second suit under prescribed circumstances had no application to a case in which judgment had been rendered on the merits. Taking judicial notice of the pleadings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in the former case, the court held the conclusion to be inescapable that all issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint in the instant action were adjudicated in the first case and that the matter was res judicata. The adjudication in the first case that the ownership of the waters of Gallinas River and tributaries to the City and Town of Las Vegas as successors to the original Mexican pueblo "is conclusive of all matters alleged in this action." The order dismissing the complaint was sustained. Justice Carmody, in a specially concurring opinion, pointed out that his concurrence here neither suggested nor intimated either approval or 90 That the original decision "has large and forseeable implications" is stated by Clark, R. E., "New Mexico Water Law Since 1955," 2 Natural Resources Jour. 484, 557 (1962). 91 Cartwright v. Public Serv. Co. ofN. Mex., 66 N. Mex. 64, 343 Pac. (2d) 654 (1958). "Cdrtwright v. Public Serv. Co. ofN. Mex., 68 N. Mex. 418, 362 Pac. (2d) 796 (1961). 93N. Mex. Stat. Ann. § 23-1-14 (1953). |