City of Santa Monica v. Los Angeles County

Taxation—Beal Property Acquired by City After March 1st— Liability for State and County Taxes.—A city which acquired real property after March 1, 1903, became liable for state and county taxes subsequently levied and assessed thereupon for that year.

Id.—Lien for Taxes on March 1st.—The lien for the taxes levied and assessed for that year attached upon such real property on March 1st of that year, regardless of its then ownership, and the subsequent acquisition of title thereto by the city could not affect such lien.

Id.—Effect of Subsequent Levy and Assessment—Steps for Enforcement of Lien—Delation.—The subsequent fixation of the amount of the lien, through levy and assessment, was but a step necessary for the enforcement of the established lien. When these acts were performed, they, by relation, became part of the established lien, and were secured thereby.

Id.—Regularity of Subsequent Proceedings not Material.—In the matter of taxation, the obligation imposed upon the property is such as to render it liable for the tax thereafter levied and assessed, which is an immediate liability created, even though there may be an omission or irregularity in subsequent proceedings affecting the levy and assessment. These may in a subsequent year be corrected, and the liability enforced.

Id.—Time of Acquisition by City Subject to Unpaid Assessment and Levy.—The city acquiring the title after March 1st' before the levy and assessment occupies no different position than it would have occupied if it had acquired the property after the levy and assessment had been made and equalized, in which event the property so acquired was subject to the lien on account of the taxes levied and unpaid.

Id.—Lien for Taxes on City Property not Merged in Title of City. A city by its organization is not vested with any power to aid the state or county in the levy or collection of taxes for state or county purposes; and the bare acquisition of property by a city which is subject to a lien for state or county purposes, did not carry with it any interest or estate in the lien thereby created which could be merged in the title of the city.

Id.—Less Estate not Vested in City to Support Merger.—There was no vesting of any lesser estate in the title. acquired by the city subject to state or county taxes held in the same right or otherwise through which any merger of the lien of the state or county could be said to result to the city. When the city acquired the land it was subject to the existing lien of the taxes to the same extent as would be a private purchaser thereof.

Ib.—Payment of Taxes to County Under Protest—Improper Judgment for Recovery — Reversal—Immaterial Question—Power to Prevent Sale.—The fact that the city paid to the county under protest the amount of the taxes assessed for county purposes cannot entitle the city to recover the same from the county, and a judgment for such recovery must be reversed, regardless of any question of inability of the city to prevent a sale by payment of the taxes, a sale having been obviated by such payment.