Spring Valley Water Co. v. Planer

PARKER, J.,

pro

tem.—Appeal by defendant from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

This is a proceeding in

mandamus.

The case involves the validity of certain taxes assessed and also presents the question of the propriety of the remedy sought. The purpose of the action was to compel the tax collector to issue to plaintiff his receipt showing payment in full of current taxes upon the tender of all taxes save and except the district taxes discussed in

Spring Valley Water Co.

v.

County of Alameda, ante,

p. 157 [263 Pac. 318]. The contention of appellant is that this is not a proper exercise of the writ of mandate, and his ground of contention is that to employ the writ in similar cases would tend to endless confusion in the system of tax collections, and that plaintiff has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy under the general law. However, it is the law that the writ of mandate will issue to compel the performance of a plain duty, and it is obvious that when a legal tender within the time specified by statute, of an amount sufficient to discharge the tax claim is made to the tax collector it is his duty to issue the usual receipt, and mandate lies to compel the performance of this duty

(Perry

v.

Wash-hum,

20 Cal. 318).

The plaintiff here in its complaint alleged such a tender on the stated allegations that the taxes which had been omitted from the tender were illegal and void; in other words, that he had tendered and did tender and offer to pay all amounts legally due and collectible. Upon proof of these allegations he would be entitled to the writ of mandate.

In the case at bar it appears that the district taxes were separately collected, and the amounts thereof were not embraced in the general tax rate of the county. It appears

[172]