Minturn v. Hays

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1852Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The State of California has the sovereign right to tax property within its limits regardless of the owner's residency, and a court of equity lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction in cases involving strictly common law questions of taxation.

Issues

Whether the State of California has the authority to tax property owned by non-residents.
Whether the revenue act exempts non-residents from taxation.
Whether an injunction is a proper remedy for challenging the assessment of taxes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The policy and right of a sovereign State to tax property within her limits, are questions so familiar, that I consider it unnecessary to discuss them.”

“Nor do I conceive it to be within the power of the legislature, to exempt any species of property, however owned, from taxation.”

“In the case under consideration, and in all cases involving simply the question of taxation, the issue is strictly one at common law, and courts of equity can take no cognizance thereof.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.

The complaint states, that the plaintiffs are residents of New York, and the owners of the steam-heat New World, built, &c., in New York, whence she sailed for San Francisco and arrived in June, 1850, and has ever since been employed as a passenger and freight boat, in running between Sacramento City and San Francisco ; that the plaintiffs have been taxed in New York for their property in the said boat; and that defendant, Sheriff of San Francisco, threatens, and is about to seize said steam-boat for taxes assessed against the same in the county of San Francisco, in the year 1851; which assessment is made as follows ; “ Charles Minturn, agent, Steam-boat New World, value $65,000;” which plaintiffs say, is illegal, &c.; that said Charles Minturn is not owner of, and has no interest in, the boat, and that neither of said plaintiffs has been assessed in said county for any personal estate; and pray for an injunction.

The Court ordered an injunction to issue; and the defendant demurred, alleging for cause, 1st, defect of parties; the complaint alleges illegality in the assessment, and the assessor is not made a party. 2d, The facts as stated do not constitute a cause of action : and 3d, Are not sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. The Court sustained the demurrer; and plaintiffs appealed.

Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court; with which Anderson, Justice, concurred.

The plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of the State of Hew York; that they own the steamer Hew World, which is engaged in navigating the waters of the State of California; that they pay taxes for said steamer in Hew York, and therefore they say that they ought not to be taxed here, and pray that the tax collector be restrained by injunction, from levying the assessments made against said steamer.

The policy and right of a sovereign State to tax property within her limits, are questions so familiar, that I consider it unnecessary to discuss them.

And indeed the right of the State to tax the property in question, was admitted in the argument by the plaintiff’s counsel. He insists, however, that the State has not attempted to [592]enforce that right, and that the revenue law does not provide for a case of this kind. His reasoning is founded on the 8th section of the Act of 1851, which says, “ Every person shall be listed in the county where he resides,” &c.; and therefore, because the plaintiffs are residents of no county in the State, they are unaffected by the provisions of the law.

This is certainly a singular construction; and its practical effect would be, that non-resident foreigners shall receive the protection of the State in the enjoyment of property, and in the profitable pursuits of commerce and traffic, free from any of the burdens of government; and that these shall be borne exclusively by the resident citizens of the State, who enjoy no greater benefits, and receive no higher protection. To such a view, I cannot give my assent.

Nor do I conceive it to be within the power of the legislature, to exempt any species of property, however owned, from taxation.

The 11th article of the 18th section of the Constitution, declares, “ all property in this State, shall be taxed in proportion to its value.”

This language is explicit in prescribing the duty of our lawmakers, and the law presumes that they did their duty, unless its violation is so plain and palpable, as to be beyond the limits of construction.

But considering the section relied upon, with other portions of the revenue act, it is very evident that it was only intended as a provision for the convenience of the resident tax payers of the State, and not as an exemption from the payment of all taxes, .by the non-resident owners and proprietors.

Minturn v. Hays

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief