City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co.

THE COURT.

This case was before this court upon a former appeal from an order appointing a receiver, and is reported in 124 Cal. at page 368. Upon that appeal the order appointing the receiver was reversed. Upon the present record several appeals were taken, but all have been settled and dismissed, except an appeal taken by the defendant from an order directing the receiver to pay to the assessor of the county of Los Angeles the sum of $1,845.22, the tax claimed to have been levied and assessed upon moneys and solvent credits in the hands of the receiver on the first Monday in March, 1899.

The order appointing Gibson as receiver of the water company was reversed May 5, 1899, and the

remittitur

was filed in the court below on July 7th. On June 7th, in reply to a letter from the county assessor demanding a statement of the taxable property in his hands, the receiver wrote that on the first Monday of March he had, as receiver, solvent credits amounting to $138,400.11, less debts due residents of the state, $757.97, leaving balance of $137,642.14, and cash collections received that day (March 6th, noon), say $749.55, and further said: “I am unable to say whether said property is subject to taxation, and have applied to said superior court (Department 2) for instructions as to my duty in the premises. Upon entry of its order I shall act in accordance therewith.” The assessor thereupon, in the column headed “Description of .Property in the City of Los Angeles,” made the following written statement: “Solvent credits, $138,-400.11, less amounts due residents of the state, $757.97. Taxable balance solvent credits, $137,642.14. Money on hand, $749.55.” And in the column headed “Amount of Money and Solvent Credits,” he entered “$138,391.69.”

It is contended that this assessment consisted only of the name of the receiver and a copy of his letter. That it was defective in form may be conceded, but the correctness of the figures is not questioned. The assessor, however, with the written consent of the district attorney, corrected the errors

[701]

and defects in form under the provisions of section 3881 of the Political Code, but no change was made in the facts and figures stated in the receiver’s letter. Section 3885 of the same code provides: “No assessment or act relating to assessment or collection of taxes is illegal on account of informality, nor because the same was not completed within the time required by law.” It is argued, however, that there was no assessment in existence to be corrected. The letter written by the receiver in reply to the written demand of the assessor (in which was stated all the facts necessary to constitute an assessment) was clearly intended as an assessment, conditioned only upon the decision of the court that the property was taxable in his hands as receiver. No change was made in the amounts of either of the several sums stated, either by the assessor or the board of equalization, or by the court.