Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles

SMITH, J.

This is a suit to recover taxes paid under protest. The case—as shown by the admitted allegations of the complaint and stipulation of the parties—is: A verified statement of property for taxation for the year 1904, showing deposits to the amount of $3,650, and no more, had been given in to the assessor by the plaintiff; and afterward there was included in the plaintiff’s assessment by the assessor the following item: “Escrow money in Merchants’ National Bank, $55,000.” The latter amount was held by the plaintiff as agent or trustee for the owners and purchasers of various tracts of land (twenty-two in number) whose titles it had been employed to pass upon—and was to be paid to the owners, or returned to the purchasers (with deduction of charges), according to the result of the search.

The question involved is, whether this property was assessable to the plaintiff; and this question, we think, must be answered in the affirmative. The money was undoubtedly in the possession and control of the plaintiff as agent or trustee of the various parties interested in it. It was, therefore, the duty of the plaintiff to return it in its statement, and the duty of the assessor to assess it to the plaintiff, or the equitable owners, if accessible. (Pol. Code, secs. 3628, 3639;

People

v.

National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co.,

123 Cal. 52, [69 Am. St. Rep. 32, 55 Pac. 685];

Bode

v.

Holtz,

65 Cal. 106, [3 Pac. 495].)

In the case of

Weyse

v.

Crawford, 85 Cal.

196, [34 Pac. 735], it was indeed held that goods on storage in a warehouse, for which warehouse receipts had been issued, were not subject to what is called an

arbitrary

assessment to the warehouseman under the provisions of section 3652 et seq. of the Political Code. But this did not affect the right and duty of the assessor to assess this property as required by section 3628 of that code.

(People