Kelshaw v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 2, 1934 No. Docket No. 9124.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the order directing the county treasurer to refund inheritance taxes was void because the court lacked jurisdiction to issue it after the original tax-fixing order had become final. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to punish the treasurer for contempt for failing to comply with the void order.

Issues

Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to order a refund of inheritance taxes after the original order fixing the tax had become final.
Whether the superior court has jurisdiction to punish a county treasurer for contempt for refusing to comply with a void order.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that the order is void, and that this fact so appears upon the face of the record.”

“Since upon the face of the record it appears that the amount of inheritance tax was the exact amount provided for in the order fixing the amount of tax to be paid, the conclusion necessarily follows that there could have been no amount “erroneously paid””

“Therefore, in the contempt proceeding the court is without jurisdiction to punish for violation of such void order.”

[190]

CONREY, P. J.

The petitioner Kelshaw, treasurer of the county of San Luis Obispo, applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, to prevent further action in a contempt proceeding now pending in respondent court. An alternative writ issued, and the cause was transferred to this court. Although there is an answer on file the facts are not in dispute, and the questions at issue are those raised by demurrer to the petition.

In the matter of the estate of Halsey H. Carpenter, deceased, in the course of administration in respondent court, and after appraisement duly approved, by an order of date March 17, 1930, it was determined that the amount of inheritance taxes due to the state of California, for which the several heritable interests in the estate were liable, amounted to the sum of ,$23,449.27, and the payment of that sum (which had been made on March 10, 1930), to the treasurer of the county of San Luis Obispo, was approved. In August, 1932, the administratrix presented to the court her motion for an order directing the treasurer to refund a portion of said tax. In opposition to said motion, it was contended that the order fixing tax was a final judgment, and that the court had no jurisdiction at' that time to make any order for refunding of any part of said tax. Nevertheless, on January 6, 1933, the court granted the motion, and directed the county treasurer, Kelshaw (petitioner herein), to refund and repay to said administratrix the sum of $1149.51, found to have been overpaid in the aforesaid payment of inheritance taxes of said estate.

The treasurer having refused to comply with the provisions of said order of January 6, 1933, the court issued its citation to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt of court by reason of such refusal and disobedience.

Thereupon, this proceeding was instituted for a writ of prohibition. And it is admitted that unless so prohibited and restrained, respondent court will proceed to hear and determine said contempt proceeding, and punish the said Kelshaw, treasurer, for failure to comply with said order directing a refund.

[191]

Kelshaw v. Superior Court

AI Brief

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief