People v. Rains

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1863Published

Before: Crocker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint was defective for failing to state the assessed value of the property as required by the governing statute, necessitating reversal. However, the court affirmed that property in possession or control of a party is properly assessable to that party regardless of legal title.

Issues

Whether the complaint was defective for failing to state the assessed value of the property.
Whether the complaint was required to aver that the statutory publication period had expired.
Whether the assessment of property to persons in possession or control, rather than the legal owners, was valid.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is evident that the complaint is defective in not stating the assessed value of the property—that is, the assessed value of the real estate, the improvements thereon, and of the personal property, each separately.”

“This matter of publication does not affect or relate to the right or cause of action, but merely to the time of commencing the action.”

“It is sufficient for the purpose of assessment and taxation that he finds some person in possession, or having the charge and control of the property, to authorize him to assess it in the name of such person”

Synopsis

In an action to recover delinquent taxes in the County of San Bernardino, assessed for the year 1860, the complaint should state the assessed value of the real estate, the improvements, and the personal property, each separately.

When the statute provides that the District Attorney, before commencing suit, shall publish notice to delinquents, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint that this notice was published, but the failure to publish this notice must be taken advantage of by plea in abatement, or it is waived.

It is not error to make the real estate a party, as in proceedings in rem, in an action to collect taxes.

The Assessor may assess real estate to any person whom he finds in the possession, charge, or control of it, and such person is liable for the taxes, as well as the property assessed.

Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

This is an action to recover delinquent taxes levied for the fiscal year 1860, on certain real estate, improvements thereon, and personal property, in the County of San Bernardino. The Court rendered judgment against the defendants and the real estate assessed, from which they appeal. [133]The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that several causes of action had been improperly united; that it was ambiguous and uncertain, and that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant. The Court overruled the demurrer, and this is assigned for error. The complaint in this case follows the form prescribed by the General Revenue Act of 1861 (Stat. of 1861, 433) ; but this action does not properly come within the provisions of that act, which apply only to the taxes of the year 1861 and the succeeding years, and these taxes were levied in the year 1860. But on the twenty-seventh day of March, ,1861 (Stat. 1861, 75), a law was passed relating to the delinquent taxes of 1860 in the County of San Bernardino, and that act therefore properly governs this action. The second section of the latter act provides that the complaint “ shall state the kind and value of the property assessed, both real and personal.” The complaint in this case describes the real estate fully and particularly, and then states, “ also the improvements thereon.” A further averment is that the defendants were “ the owners of, and there was duly assessed to them the above described real estate, improvements upon the same, and certain personal property,” and then sets forth the amounts of the several kinds of taxes levied upon the property. It contains no further description of the improvements or personal property, nor does it state the value of any of the property assessed. It is evident that the complaint is defective in not stating the assessed value of the property—that is, the assessed value of the real estate, the improvements thereon, and of the personal property, each separately. It is sufficient in stating the “ kind ” of property to state which of these three kinds of property the assessed property consists of. The description of the property in this complaint we deem sufficient, for the reasons stated in the case of The People v. Eastman, decided at the present term. The act in question does not require a more particular or specific description than the law in question in that case.

The seventh section of the act under which this action was brought provides, that the District Attorney shall, immediately upon the receipt of a certified copy of the act, cause the same to be

People v. Rains

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief