City of Los Angeles v. Glassell
Before: Wilbur
Synopsis
Action to Recoves City Taxes—Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint. A complaint by a city to recover municipal taxes from the executors of a deceased testator, which, in addition to the allegations required by the statutory form of complaint, describes the property assessed, and alleges that said taxes were duly assessed and levied upon personal property, which then and there belonged to and was part of the estate of said • deceased person, which said defendants, as such executors, had in their possession and control in said city at 12 o’clock noon, on the first Monday in March of the year of assessment, sufficiently states a cause of action.
Id.—Proof of Ultimate Fact—Death of Decedent in City.—The averment of the complaint that the executors had the assessed property in their possession and control in said city at the time stated is of the ultimate fact, to prove which it may be necessary to show in evidence that the said decedent died in said city.
Id.—Authorization of Suit.—The suit by the city to recover the alleged amount of taxes is authorized, both by the ordinance of the city regulating the levy and collection of taxes, and by the charter of the city providing that the mode and manner of collecting municipal taxes shall substantially be the same as the mode and manner at the time prescribed by the law for collection of state and county taxes in said county.
Id.—Assessment-roll as Prima Facie Evidence.—The provision of the charter makes applicable to suits for the collection of city taxes the provision of statute as to the collection of general taxes, that “the assessment-roll shall be prima facie evidence of the plaintlif’s right to recover.”
Id.—Over-assessment—Failure to Apply to Board of Equalization— Executors Concluded.—Where there was an over-assessment of solvent credits to the estate, the sole remedy of the executors was to appeal to the board of equalization, and upon failure to apply thereto they are concluded by the assessment, and cannot defend the action to recover the taxes assessed on that ground.
WILBUR, J.
(Pro
tem.)
This is an action brought by the city of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, for the recovery of $1335.18, taxes, with penalties, levied by said municipality upon the property of Andrew Glassell, deceased. The superior court gave judgment for the full amount claimed, and the defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
[45]
The complaint is very brief; after alleging the death of Andrew Glassell on January 28, 1901, in the city of Los Angeles, the appointment, on February 19, 1901, of the defendants as executors of his last will, and their qualifications as such, it is further alleged: “That said Hugh Glassell, as executors of the last will and testament of said Andrew Glassell, deceased, are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of thirteen hundred and thirty-five dollars, eighteen cents, with ten per cent penalty added thereto for nonpayment thereof, and interest thereon at the rate of two per cent per month, from December 1, 1901; which said taxes were duly assessed and levied by said city of Los Angeles for the fiscal year 1901-2, upon personal property which then and there belonged to and was part of the estate of said Andrew Glassell, deceased, and which said defendants, as such executors, had in their possession and control in said city of Los Angeles at 12 o’clock, noon, on the first Monday in March, 1901; that said personal property so assessed consisted of solvent credits in the amount of $101,605, bonds in the amount of $5000, and money in the amount of $210.” The defendants deny the allegations of the complaint, and allege that they were nonresidents of the city of Los Angeles on the first Monday in March, 1901; admit- the ownership of the bonds and money described in the complaint, but deny the ownership of the solvent credits. The finding of the court in regard to solvent credits was that the defendants as executors had in their possession and control in the city of Los Angeles solvent credits amounting to the sum of $71,756, and no more, at 12 o’clock, M., on the first Monday in March, 1901.
Three questions are raised upon the appeal: First, whether the complaint states a cause of action; second, whether the production of the assessment-book in evidence was sufficient prima facie proof of all facts essential to recovery, and third, whether or not a recovery should be had for the full amount of taxes when the solvent credits actually owned were of less value than the amount assessed.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)