Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. City of Los Angeles

SHAW, J.

The object of this- action was to recover the sum of $625 paid- by plaintiff, under duress, in discharge of city taxes of 1907, alleged to have been illegally assessed against the defendant upon certain of its property which, it is claimed, was not subject to taxation- by said city. The validity of the plaintiff’s claim depends on the question whether or not the property was thus subject to taxation. The defendant appeals upon the judgment-roll alone.

The assessment shows that it was made upon property of the defendant described as “franchise of the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company in the city of Los Angeles.” Respondent claims that it has no franchise within the city of Los Angeles, except a federal franchise under the act of Congress of July 24, 1866, to operate and maintain telegraph lines over the military and post roads of the United States.

[158]

It is conceded by the city that the streets of Los Angeles are military and post roads of the United States, that the plaintiff has a franchise from the United States under said act to operate telegraph lines thereon, and that said franchise is not taxable for local, state, or municipal purposes. The position of the counsel for the city is that the plaintiff, in addition to its- federal franchise, owns and is in the use of a franchise from the state of California to operate its telegraph lines over said streets, and that it is this state franchise, and not the federal franchise, which is described in said assessment.

If, under the facts as found by the court, plaintiff owns a state franchise in said streets, then, under the decisions of this court in

Western U. T. Co.

v.

Los Angeles Co.,

160 Cal. 124, [116 Pac. 564], and

Postal T. C. Co.

v.

Los Angeles Co.,

160 Cal. 129, [116 Pac. 566], the description given in said assessment is to be deemed to refer to that franchise alone and not to the federal nontaxable franchise, and it is a sufficient description of the state franchise. The descriptions held sufficient in those cases were in the words: “right to occupy the streets of the city of Los Angeles.” It was held that it would not be assumed, from the face of the description, that the assessor thereby intended to describe the nontaxable federal franchise, but, on the contrary, that he intended to refer only to the state franchise which he had the power to assess. A “right to occupy the streets” is a franchise. There is ho material difference between the language of the descriptions in those cases and that in the case at bar, and the same reasoning applies.