N.M. Stat. » Chapter 49 — Land Grants
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 49-1-1 (2026)

Management of Spanish and Mexican grants

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All land grants-mercedes in the state or land grants-mercedes described in Section 49-1-2 NMSA 1978 shall be managed, controlled and governed by their bylaws, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and as provided in Sections 49-1-1 through 49-1-18 NMSA 1978 as political subdivisions of the state.

History: Laws 1907, ch. 42, § 1; Code 1915, § 799; C.S. 1929, § 29-101; 1941 Comp., § 9-101; 1953 Comp., § 8-1-1; 2004, ch. 124, § 3.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For corporations for management of community land grants, see 49-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

The 2004 amendment, effective July 1, 2004, rewrote this section and designated land grants covered by Sections 49-1-1 to 49-1-18 NMSA 1978 as political subdivisions of the state.

Amendment by surviving grantor. — Where a trust is silent on amendment after the death of one of the grantors and provides that the surviving grantor has the unrestricted right to withdraw all assets from the trust estate, the power to amend the trust is implied. Cable v. Wells Fargo Bank N.M., N.A., 2008-NMCA-005, 143 N.M. 269, 175 P.3d 937, aff'd, 2010-NMSC-017, 148 N.M. 127, 231 P.3d 108.

Third party claim. — The district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claim of title to a portion of the Tecolote land grant under the provisions of the congressional confirmation and patent, which provided that they "shall not affect any adverse valid rights" where plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest had participated in proceedings to challenge the issuance of the patent as a community grant and lost, plaintiffs’ claim sought to convert a portion of the land grant from a community land grant into private property and the grant to plaintiff’s predecessors in title had not been confirmed. Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant, 2008-NMCA-014, 143 N.M. 413, 176 P.3d 1145, cert. quashed, 2008-NMCERT-010, 145 N.M. 524, 201 P.3d 855.

Application of Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant, 2008-NMCA-014, to land covered by a stipulated order granting title to Montoya. — Where, in 1999, Montoya filed an action against the land grant to quiet title to 19,320 acres within the land grant; the land grant counterclaimed to quiet title against Montoya; the land grant claimed no common lands within the property known as the "Montoya ranch" which consisted of approximately 5,000 acres within the larger 19,320 acre tract and the district court entered a stipulated judgment that Montoya had title against the land grant to the Montoya ranch; in 2008, in Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant, 2008-NMCA-014, the court of appeals held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine title because the district court had no authority to alter the terms of the congressional confirmation of the United States patent to the land grant as a community land grant; and in 2010, the land grant sued Montoya alleging that under Montoya, the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter the stipulated judgment confirming title to the Montoya ranch in Montoya, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in the 1999 case over the land grant’s counterclaim and jurisdiction to confirm the party’s agreement by entering the stipulated judgment quieting title to the Montoya ranch in Montoya, the stipulated judgment removed the issue of the ownership of the Montoya ranch from the litigation, Montoya was limited to the dispute over the remaining portion of the 19,320 acres, excluding the Montoya ranch, and given the agreement that the Montoya ranch was not land grant common land, the stipulated judgment did not result in an impermissible alteration or alter the origin, nature, character, or size of the land grant. Tecolote Land Grant v. Montoya, 2014-NMCA-092, cert. denied, 2014-NMCERT- 008.

Corporation rules applicable to grants. — A community land grant is in the nature of a quasi-municipal corporation and is governed by the rules of law applicable thereto. Bibo v. Town of Cubero Land Grant, 1958-NMSC-137, 65 N.M. 103, 332 P.2d 1020.

Estoppel from questioning land interests. — Where those under whom plaintiffs claim interest in common lands of Atrisco land grant procured incorporation of the town of Atrisco on the claim the grant was communal and procured decree of the court of private land claims similarly holding the grant to be communal, they have participated in its operation as such a grant for too long a time now to question their interest. Armijo v. Town of Atrisco, 1951-NMSC-085, 56 N.M. 2, 239 P.2d 535.

Congressional act conclusive. — Where congress has confirmed grant as a private land grant, without qualification or limitation, the confirmatory act of congress is final and conclusive and court may not go behind that act and determine the character or nature of the grant from antecedent documents. Martinez v. Rivera, 196 F.2d 192 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 828, 73 S. Ct. 30, 97 L. Ed. 644 (1952).

Corporation rules applicable to grants. — While a grant organized under this section would not be a corporation, it would be so nearly a corporation in its nature that the same rules should apply. 1944 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 44-4497.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 73B C.J.S. Public Lands § 205.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1960–2014 · leading case: Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Review Comm., 2014 NMSC 6 (N.M. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Review Comm., 2014 NMSC 6 (N.M. 2014). · cites it 3× “The Land Grants Act provides, All land grants-mercedes in the state or land grants-mercedes described in Section 49-1-2 NMSA 1978 shall be managed, controlled and governed by their bylaws, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and as provided in Sections 49-1-1 through 49-1-18 NMSA…”
Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 487 P.2d 145 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “” The third and fourth applications were affirmatively recommended by the membership committee.”
State Ex Rel. Pennsylvania Transformer Div. v. Elec. City Supply Co., 393 P.2d 325 (N.M. 1964). · cites it 3× “Each of the proposed amended answers tendered by the appellants asserted that the contract between Basin Light & Power Company and appellant contractor, dated April 30, 1959, as alleged in paragraph 3 of the appellee’s complaint, was null and void because it was made in…”
Cordova v. Broadbent, 755 P.2d 59 (N.M. 1988). · cites it 2× “” Whether a board is a Spanish land grant board organized under Section 49-1-1 to -21, or is incorporated under territorial authority pursuant to Section 49-2-1 to -18, the members of the board must be duly elected.”
Cebolleta Land Grant, Ex Rel. Bd. of Trs. of the Cebolleta Land Grant v. Romero, 644 P.2d 515 (N.M. 1982). “If it is, Apodaca and §§ 49-2-1 through 49-2-18 are controlling; if it is not, then the general provisions of §§ 49-1-1 through 49-1-21, N.M.S.A.1978 (Orig.”
Wilson v. Albuquerque Bd. of Realtors, 472 P.2d 371 (N.M. 1970). “Thereafter, he brought this action to enjoin the corporate appellee and twelve individual defendants from continuing practices in restraint of trade (§§ 49-1-1 through 49-1-6, N.M.S. A., 1953 Comp.”
Rayellen Resources, Inc. v. New Mexico Cultural Props. Review Comm., 2014 NMSC 006 (N.M. 2014). · cites it 4× “The Land Grants Act provides, All land grants-mercedes in the state or land grants-mercedes described in Section49-1-2NMSA 1978 shallbe managed, controlled and governed by their bylaws, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and as provided in Sections 49-1-1 through 49-1-18 NMSA…”
Maestas v. Bd. of Trs. of Anton Chico Land Grant, 703 P.2d 174 (N.M. 1985). “We believe the primary issue presented by this case is not whether the trial court has the jurisdiction to order the Board to renew a lease, but rather whether the trial court may require the Board to follow its own rules and regulations in a nondiscriminatory and uniform manner.”
Yarborough v. Harkey, 354 P.2d 137 (N.M. 1960). · cites it 2× “The operating agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants does not, in our opinion, violate § 49-1-1, NMSA 1953 Comp., relating to contracts in restraint of trade.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.