Dobyns v. Cheshire

CRAIL, J.

This is an appeal on the judgment roll alone from a judgment against appellant after an order sustaining

[78]

a demurrer, without leave to amend, to appellant’s petition for a writ of

mandamus

alleging the illegality of a tax which had been levied by the city of Pasadena. Appellant says “the fundamental problem is whether a tax levy for one year under the Municipal Improvement District Act of 1915 can include delinquencies in the collection for the prior year”. Appellant contends the answer should be a negative one. However, the question is more accurately stated in the following form: Is a tax, levied pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Improvement District Act of 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 99), wholly or partially invalid for the reason that such tax' if wholly paid would be in excess of the exact amount to meet the accruing bond interest and principal during the year following the levy of such tax f

The pertinent part of section 9 of said statute reads as follows: “The legislative body of such city'shall, at the time of fixing the general tax levy, and in the manner for such general tax levy provided, levy and collect a tax each year upon the taxable property in such district sufficient to pay the interest on such bonds for that year, and such portion of the principal thereof as is to become due before the time for making the next general tax levy; provided, however, that if the maturity of the indebtedness created by the issue of such bonds be made to begin more than one year after the date of such issue, such tax shall be levied and collected, at the time and in the manner aforesaid, each year sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and also to a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof on or before maturity. ...” Section 14 of said statute provides : “The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effect the purpose thereof. ...”

Delinquencies in collections for prior years may be included in subsequent tax levies. This has been the decision of the Supreme Court of this state and other courts when called upon to consider similar statutes.

(Municipal Improvement Co.