Maywood Mutual Water Co. No. 3 v. County of Los Angeles

Opinion

LILLIE, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover property taxes paid under protest. The first cause of action alleged that plaintiff was not the owner of some 2,022 water service connections and meters which, for that reason, were improperly assessed to it for the fiscal year 1967-1968. The second cause of action sought judicial review of the denial by defendant assessment appeals board (sitting as the county board of equalization) of plaintiff’s application for reduction of tax assessments, also for the year 1967-1968, on its plant, equipment and real estate; attached to the complaint was the transcript of the hearing before the board. Judgment was entered for defendants; plaintiff appeals. It must be concluded for the reasons appearing below that the judgment should be affirmed.

At the hearing before the appeals board the ownership issue, tendered by the pleadings as to the first cause of action, admittedly was presented by plaintiff only tangentially; as a result, the appellate record is devoid of any evidence, save for the claims thereto in the complaint (which the answer denied), that the meters belonged to plaintiff’s customers. As to the first cause of action, therefore, there is no reporter’s transcript, nor is there any finding of fact or stipulation with respect to the ownership of the meters; instead, as disclosed by the clerk’s transcript, there are simply conclusions of law and a judgment which provide that plaintiff take nothing from defendants on such cause of action. The appeal thus being on the clerk’s transcript, it must be treated as an appeal on the judgment roll

(Kopf

v.

Milam,

60 Cal.2d 600, 601 [35 Cal.Rptr. 614, 387 P.2d 390]), and unless error appears on the face of the record, all intendments will be in support of

[960]

the judgment.

(Dumas

v.

Stark,

56 Cal.2d 673, 674 [16 Cal.Rptr. 368, 365 P.2d 424].)