City of Los Angeles v. Riley

CURTIS, J.

The City of Los Angeles, by this proceeding in

mandamus,

seeks to compel respondent state officials to transfer to the city certain funds collected under the terms of Statutes of 1935, page 1312, and now on deposit in the state treasury to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Fund, as expressly provided in section 9 (b) of the above-mentioned act. Respondents have refused to make such transfer until the validity of said section of said act has been established and have made their return to the petition by way of general demurrer.

The constitutionality of the act, generally, has been upheld in

Ingels

v.

Riley,

5 Cal. (2d) 154 [53 Pac. (2d) 939], In that case, it was also held that the tax imposed by the act is not a property tax but 1 ‘ an excise tax, for revenue purposes, imposed upon the privilege of using the highways for the purpose of operating thereon registered motor vehicles”. (5 Cal. (2d) 154 [53 Pac. (2d) 939].)

The act as a whole provides for the imposition of a privilege tax on owners of registered motor vehicles and the collection of the tax by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. By the first section 9 of the act (there are three sections 9 in the statute), it is provided that the money collected shall be deposited in the state treasury to “the credit of the motor vehicle license fee fund”. Section 9 (a) appropriates one per cent of the fund to the Department of Motor Vehicles for administrative purposes. Section 9 (b) appropriates twenty-five per cent of the remainder of the fund to the cities and cities and counties of the state on a population basis, and expressly provides that “The moneys so paid shall be expended by the cities and

[623]

cities and counties for law enforcement and the regulation and control and fire protection of highway traffic.”

The major question now presented for determination is "whether section 9 (b) violates article XI, section 12, of the state Constitution. That section, as amended in 1933, provides :