The contract entered, subject to approval of the New Mexico legislature, between The Michie Company of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the compilation commission on January 7, 1977, to publish a 1978 compilation of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated is hereby ratified and approved.
History: 1953 Comp., § 1-1-1, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 74, § 1.
ANNOTATIONSRepeals and reenactments. — Laws 1977, ch. 74, § 1, repealed 1-1-1, 1953 Comp., relating to ratification of contract and contents and form of compilation, and enacted a new section.
Compiler's notes. — The 1978 NMSA is the tenth codification, revision or compilation of the laws of New Mexico since the "Kearny Code of Laws" of 1846. The Kearny Code, which with its accompanying Bill of Rights and congressional acts, was the basis of the New Mexico legal system until statehood, was prepared under Brigadier General Stephan W. Kearny's orders by Col. Alexander W. Doniphan and Pvt. Willard P. Hall, with assistance from Franklin P. Blair and Dr. David Waldo.
In 1854 the territorial legislature provided for a revision, correction and codification of the laws which was completed by Chief Justice James J. Deavenport in 1856 as the "Revised Statutes of the Territory of New Mexico."
The third revision was authorized by the legislature in 1859, and the commission reported to that body in 1865. The 1865 revision was held to repeal all acts enacted prior thereto. See Tafoya v. Garcia, 1 N.M. 480 (1871), in the notes to this section. An unauthorized compilation following the plan of the 1865 Code was prepared by Chief Justice L. Bradford Prince in 1880.
A compilation of the laws was again authorized in 1884 and was prepared by three commissioners who published their work in 1885 under the title "Compiled Laws of New Mexico." The last territorial compilation was authorized and published in 1897 as the "Compiled Laws of New Mexico."
After New Mexico achieved statehood in 1912, a new compilation was planned. However, the New Mexico Statutes of 1915 was issued as a codification, in both English and Spanish, and was enacted into law by the legislature. The title of the act read "An act to codify the laws of the state of New Mexico." The enacting clause was: "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of New Mexico:" after which was set out the body of the code, which became effective June 11, 1915. The repealing and saving clause of the 1915 codification read, in part: "This act shall not be considered as enacting or adopting any chapter heading, article heading, section heading, footnote, reference or citation." (See Code 1915, p. 1665; C.S. 1929, § 138-101; 1941 Comp., § 1-118).
The New Mexico Statutes of 1929 was a compilation authorized by Laws 1929, ch. 135, and was also translated into Spanish.
The 1941 Compilation was authorized by Laws 1941, ch. 191, which also created the 1941 compilation commission.
Laws 1953, ch. 39, § 1, authorized the 1953 Compilation, which was the last revision prior to NMSA 1978.
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
Effect of omission of law from NMSA 1978. — Since NMSA 1978 is a compilation, not a revision or codification, i.e., it is gathered from other books and documents, a failure to refer to an enacted law in NMSA 1978 would not diminish the applicability of that enacted law. Loesch v. Henderson, 1985-NMCA-104, 103 N.M. 554, 710 P.2d 748.
"Revised Statutes" means not merely the compilation or collecting together of existing statutes, but also the amendation or expurgation of such provisions as the revisors might deem unnecessary. Tafoya v. Garcia, 1871-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 480.
Meaning of revision. — A revision of statutes implies one, or all of the following: (1) a reexamination of existing statutes; (2) a restatement of existing statutes in a corrected or improved form; (3) the restatement may or may not include material changes; (4) all parts and provisions of the former statute or statutes that are omitted are repealed; (5) the revision displaces and repeals the former law as it stood relating to the subject or subjects within its purview. City of Raton v. Sproule, 1967-NMSC-141, 78 N.M 136, 429 P.2d 336.
Reenactment of statute in substantially same language in which it was originally phrased constitutes the latter statute merely a continuation of the former. McClain v. Haley, 1949-NMSC-036, 53 N.M. 327, 207 P.2d 1013; State v. Thompson, 1933-NMSC-021, 37 N.M. 229, 20 P.2d 1030.
Reenactment of part of statute in substantially same language. — Where original language of a statute was reenacted on two separate occasions, the statute was not to be deemed a new enactment as to that part of the section as remained in its original form, but rather as a continuation thereof. Janney v. Fullroe, Inc., 1943-NMSC-042, 47 N.M. 423, 144 P.2d 145.
II. 1865 REVISION.
Statutes not included impliedly repealed. — All statutes of a public nature enacted prior to 1864-65 legislature and not contained in the revised statutes adopted at that session were impliedly repealed by such omission. Tafoya v. Garcia, 1871-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 480.
Statutes construed as not mutually repugnant. — Provisions of 1865 Revised Statutes were considered as all reenacted on date of legislative adoption of the revision; all provisions touching the same subject matter were to be construed in such manner that one part not be repugnant to another. In re Watts, 1872-NMSC-002, 1 N.M. 541.
Unless conflicting in practical operation. — Where sections dealing with same subject matter but enacted at different times were reenacted, on same day, as part of Revised Statutes of 1865, each section was in full force and effect unless the sections conflicted with each other in their practical operation. Gallegos v. Pino, 1867-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 410.
III. 1915 CODIFICATION.
Purpose in adopting. — In adopting the 1915 Codification, it was the purpose to continue all statutes in force so far as necessary to afford protection to parties who had initiated rights thereunder. In re Dasburg, 1941-NMSC-024, 45 N.M. 184, 113 P.2d 569.
Existing statutes continued. — The sections embodied in the 1915 Codification were taken or adopted from existing statutes and were to be construed as continuations. Wells v. Dice, 1929-NMSC-008, 33 N.M. 647, 275 P. 90.
Commenced prosecutions not affected. — Prosecution under 1897 Comp. Laws was not affected by repeal of that compilation and adoption of 1915 Codification where commenced prior to the repeal. State v. Coppinger, 1916-NMSC-012, 21 N.M. 435, 155 P. 732.
Existing remedies and rules of evidence preserved. — All statutes omitted from the 1915 Codification were continued in force for the preservation of all remedies and rules of evidence existing by virtue of such statutes, insofar as they applied to a contract made, or a right initiated or an event which had happened prior to the adoption of the codification. Harris v. Friend, 1918-NMSC-116, 24 N.M. 627, 175 P. 722.
Effect of repealing clause. — Repealing clause of 1915 Codification repealed only laws of a general and permanent nature not included in the codification. Scarbrough v. Wooten, 1918-NMSC-019, 23 N.M. 616, 170 P. 743.
Pardon statute deemed unconstitutional until codification. — Pardon statute which was inoperative by reason of being unconstitutional at time of its adoption and at all times thereafter until codified in 1915 Codification became component part of laws of state by virtue of adoption of the 1915 Code. Ex parte Bustillos, 1920-NMSC-095, 26 N.M. 449, 194 P. 886.
IV. 1953 COMPILATION.
The 1953 statutes annotated were a compilation and not a reenactment. City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 1960-NMSC-138, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §§ 325 to 332.
Adoption of compiled or revised statutes as giving effect to former repealed or suspended provisions included therein, 12 A.L.R.2d 423.
82 C.J.S. Statutes §§ 271 to 277.