The inhabitants within the state of New Mexico, known by the name of the Pueblo Indians, and living in towns or villages built on lands granted to such Indians by the laws of Spain and Mexico, and conceding to such inhabitants certain lands and privileges, to be used for the common benefit, are severally hereby created and constituted bodies politic and corporate, and shall be known in the law by the name of the Pueblo de . . . . . . . . ., (naming it), and by that name they and their successors shall have perpetual succession, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, bring and defend in any court of law or equity, all such actions, pleas and matters whatsoever, proper to recover, protect, reclaim, demand or assert the right of such inhabitants, or any individual thereof, to any lands, tenements or hereditaments, possessed, occupied or claimed contrary to law, by any person whatsoever, and to bring and defend all such actions, and to resist any encroachment, claim or trespass made upon such lands, tenements or hereditaments, belonging to said inhabitants, or to any individual.

History: Laws 1847, p. 35; C.L. 1865, ch. 66, § 1; C.L. 1884, § 1304; C.L. 1897, § 1875; Code 1915, § 2784; C.S. 1929, § 69-101; 1941 Comp., § 54-1601; 1953 Comp., § 51-17-1.

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.

History of title held by Pueblo Indians. — The Pueblo Indians hold their lands by a right superior to that of the United States. Their title dates back to grants made by the government of Spain before the Mexican revolution, a title which was fully recognized by the Mexican government, and protected by it in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the country and the allegiance of its inhabitants were transferred to the United States. United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. (94 Otto) 614, 24 L. Ed. 295 (1876). But see Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 105 S. Ct. 2587, 86 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1985), discussing the partial supersession of Joseph by the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924.

The Pueblo Indians became citizens of the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which guaranteed their property rights equally with other citizens of New Mexico. They are a body corporate and have complete title to their lands which the courts protect the same as titles to other lands. United States v. Varela, 1874-NMSC-004, 1 N.M. 593, aff'd sub nom., United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. (94 Otto) 614, 24 L. Ed. 295 (1876). But see Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 105 S. Ct. 2587, 86 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1985), discussing the partial supersession of Joseph by the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924.

The Indian tribes are distinct political entities, with the right to self-government, having exclusive authority within their territorial boundaries and are not subject to the laws of the state in which they are located nor to federal laws except where federal laws or the jurisdiction of courts is expressly conferred by federal legislation. Your Food Stores, Inc. v. Village of Espanola, 1961-NMSC-041, 68 N.M. 327, 361 P.2d 950, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 915, 82 S. Ct. 194, 7 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1961).

Validity of "Kearny Code" and acts of 1847. — The system of laws known as the "Kearny Code," and the acts of the general assembly of New Mexico of the December session, 1847, were valid except so far as they attempted to confer political rights upon the inhabitants, under the constitution of the United States, the same having been established by competent authority by virtue of rights of war. Ward v. Broadwell, 1854-NMSC-001, 1 N.M. 75.

Effect of this section. — This section gave the Indian pueblos the status of bodies politic and corporate and as such empowered them to sue in respect of their lands. Garcia v. U.S., 43 F.2d 873 (10th Cir. 1930); Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110, 39 S. Ct. 185, 63 L. Ed. 504 (1919).

This statute does not purport to vest any governmental powers, rights or duties in the Pueblos of New Mexico which are dependent Indian communities, Indian tribes, under the guardianship of the United States. Toledo v. Pueblo De Jemez, 119 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.M. 1954).

Lands of the pueblo are subject to congressional control although held in communal fee-simple ownership by the Indians of each pueblo. United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 34 S. Ct. 1, 58 L. Ed. 107 (1913).

Pueblo still legal entity in court. — The existing wardship of the United States over the Indians of the Pueblo of Santa Rosa, in Arizona, acquired as a part of the territory of New Mexico by grant or concession, does not affect the pueblo as a legal entity in court. Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110, 39 S. Ct. 185, 63 L. Ed. 504 (1919).

State jurisdiction over Indians. — Although congress did specifically act to give its consent to the state to assume jurisdiction over the Indians within its boundaries, such jurisdiction is prohibited until the state should amend its constitution or statute, removing any legal impediment to such assumption of jurisdiction. New Mexico has not seen fit to amend N.M. Const., art. XXI, § 2 and has not accepted jurisdiction over the Indians. Your Food Stores, Inc. v. Village of Espanola, 1961-NMSC-041, 68 N.M. 327, 361 P.2d 950, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 915, 82 S. Ct. 194, 7 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1961).

Judicial jurisdiction over Indian tribe. — The district court may exercise jurisdiction over an Indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association, registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract to pay for the performance of contractual obligations accomplished or intended to be accomplished in connection with this off-reservation activity of the tribe. Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 1988-NMSC-034, 107 N.M. 174, 754 P.2d 845, cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S. Ct. 1767, 104 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1989), overruled by Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, 149 N.M. 234, 247 P.3d 1119; Antonio v. Inn of the Mt. Gods Resort & Casino, 2010-NMCA-077, 148 N.M. 858, 242 P.3d 425; Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998).

Trespass on pueblo lands actionable. — One on the lands of the pueblo, without the consent of the inhabitants, may be ejected or punished civilly, by a suit for trespass, according to the laws regulating such matters in New Mexico. U.S. v. Joseph, 94 U.S. (94 Otto) 614, 24 L. Ed. 295 (1876). But see Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 105 S. Ct. 2587, 86 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1985), discussing the partial supersession of Joseph by the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924.

An Indian pueblo may acquire title by adverse possession. Garcia v. U.S., 43 F.2d 873 (10th Cir. 1930).

Pueblos have right to alienate their lands. — Pueblo Indians in New Mexico were citizens of Mexico and at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo possessed all of the rights of any other citizen, including the right of alienation of their lands. Territory v. Persons & Prop. Described in Delinquent Tax List, 1904-NMSC-008, 12 N.M. 139, 76 P. 307. See also U.S. v. Lucero, 1869-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 422; U.S. v. Santistevan, 1874-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 583.

Pueblos have right to use limitation statutes. — Indian pueblos were held entitled to the benefits of the New Mexico statutes of limitation which may be pleaded by the United States, as their guardian, in their behalf. Garcia v. U.S., 43 F.2d 873 (10th Cir. 1930).

Pueblo lands taxable. — The lands of the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico are taxable. Territory v. Persons & Prop. Described in Delinquent Tax List, 1904-NMSC-008, 12 N.M. 139, 76 P. 307.

Sales tax may not be levied. — The statutory definition of "federal area" in 4 U.S.C. § 110(e) and the authorization of the imposition of sales tax by 4 U.S.C. § 105(a) was not intended to give the states or localities permission to levy a sales tax upon Indian lands. Your Food Stores, Inc. v. Village of Espanola, 1961-NMSC-041, 68 N.M. 327, 361 P.2d 950, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 915, 82 S. Ct. 194, 7 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1961).

State court jurisdiction over divorce action between Indians of different pueblos proper where congress has remained silent upon the subject of divorce and it is not asserted that Pueblo customs and laws provide a remedy. Tenorio v. Tenorio, 1940-NMSC-002, 44 N.M. 89, 98 P.2d 838.

No state court jurisdiction where auto accident on pueblo. — The district court of Bernalillo county properly dismissed action by resident of Isleta Pueblo, New Mexico, against another resident thereof, for damages for automobile collision which occurred within an area embraced by Valencia county, New Mexico, for lack of jurisdiction, the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico being under the jurisdiction of the United States. The accident did not occur on land of the state of New Mexico and title to the land of the Isleta Pueblo was in the Indian tribe and had never been extinguished. Valdez v. Johnson, 1961-NMSC-089, 68 N.M. 476, 362 P.2d 1004.

Pueblo actions not under color of state law. — The Pueblos do not derive their governmental powers from the state of New Mexico nor from the United States and consequently, there was no basis for holding that the conduct of the defendants (Pueblo civil authorities) of which the plaintiffs (Protestant Pueblo Indians) complain (allegedly subjecting plaintiffs to indignities, threats and reprisals because of their faith) was done under color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage. Toledo v. Pueblo De Jemez, 119 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.M. 1954).

Law reviews. — For article, "The Indian Tax Cases - A Territorial Analysis," see 9 N.M. L. Rev. 221 (1979).