Hart v. Plum
Synopsis
Appeau dismissed because the record contained no copy of the pleadings.
Under the 2d Section of the Revenue Act of 1857, taxing all property within the State, except certain descriptions of property—among which are mining claims —a flume, constructed by a mining company along the bank of a river leading to the claims of the company in the bed of the river, is not exempt.
The fact that such flume is an auxiliary to the working of the claim, does not exempt it. It is not so affixed to the claim as to be a part of it.
The case of the People v. Moore, (12 Cal.) simply holds, that the value of a mining claim itself, cannot be taxed; but this does not exempt everything near the claim necessary to give it value.
The object of the 8th Article of the Act of 1854, p. 102, if in force, is to procure a true statement of taxable property. But these provisions are directory. If the value of the property be rightly fixed by the Assessor, the assessment is valid, though that value was arrived at, in a way different from that pointed out by the statute.
If an Assessor cannot find the persons to be taxed, he may, nevertheless, assess their property.
The provision that the assessment must be made on or before the first Monday of May is directory. And, generally, when a time is fixed by statute within which a public officer is to perform an official act regarding the rights and duties of others, it will be considered directory, unless the nature of the act to be performed, or the language of the Legislature shows, that designation of the time was intended as a limitation of the power of the officer.
In this ease the assessment could be made after May, by virtue of the second proviso in the 11th Section of the Act.
The flume, although not delivered to the company by plaintiff, the Contractor, until after the assessment, was the property of the company at the time of assessment; taxable to it, and not to the Contractor.
The Contractor had his lien; but the flume being constructed for the company, on land selected by it, and paid for, as the work progressed, was the property of the company, although they had power under the contract to reject the work when completed.
Opinion
On the motion to dismiss the appeal, the following opinion jyas delivered by Terry, C. J.—Baldwin, J. concurring:
In all cases appealed the statute requires that “ the Appellant shall furnish the Court with a copy of the notice of appeal, the judgment roll, and the statement, if there be one.” (Pr. Act. Sec. [153846].) The record in this case contains no copy of the pleadings, and therefore docs not meet the requirements of the statute.
Appeal dismissed.
Concurrence
The judgment roll having been brought up by certiorari, the following opinion was delivered by Baldwin, J.—Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring:
This record involves the construction of the revenue laws of the State. The plaintiff sues the defendant for a sum of money paid by the plaintiff as taxes assessed upon certain property of the Oroville Mining Co. a corporation organized under the general laws of the State. The property was a flume,' constructed along the bank of the Feather Elver leading to the claims of the company in the bed of the river. These improvements and appliances seem to be necessary to the working of such claims. They were constructed at great expense, under contract with one Hart, the plaintiff. It is charged in the complaint that they were not to become the property of the company until received by it, and that this was not done until after the assessment was made. Some other facts appear in the case, which will be noticed hereafter.
1. The first point made is, that this work is not taxable under the laws,of this State; the argument being that mining claims are exempted by the Revenue Acts, and that this work is merely appurtenant to, and a part of, the claim. By Section 2 of the Revenue Act of April 27, 1857, (Wood’s Dig. 616,) “ all property of every kind and nature whatever, within this State, shall be subject to taxation, except ” certain descriptions, among which are mining claims. The Constitution provides that taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State, and all property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained, etc.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)