People v. San Francisco & San Jose Railroad
Before: Sawyer
Synopsis
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, San Mateo County. '
This was an action brought,to recover judgment for the sum of six hundred and thirty-eight dollars and ninety-seven cents, being the amount of a special tax levied for school purposes on the property of the appellant, in District Number Four, in San Mateo County, in the summer of 1864.
The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was overruled, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. The defendant appealed from the judgment.
By the Court,
Sawyer, J. This is an action to recover taxes levied for school district purposes in the County of San Mateo, in pursuance of the provisions of section thirty-seven of “An Act to provide for the maintenance and supervision of common schools,” passed April 6th, 1863. (Laws 1863, p. 203.) The question is, whether said section thirty-seven is repealed by section nine of “An Act to define and limit the compensation of officers, and reduce public expenses in the County of San Mateo,” passed February 6th, 1864, and section twelve of “ An Act to provide for the continuance and election of a Board of Supervisors in the County of San Mateo, and to define and limit the powers and duties of said Board in certain cases,” approved March 24th, 1864. (Laws 1864, pp. 51, 240.) [256]There being no repeal in express terms, if any exists, it must result from an inconsistency in the provisions of the several Acts. Repeals by implication are not favored. The first Act relates to a particular subject, viz: the “maintenance and supervision of common schools.” All of its provisions bear upon that subject.
Section thirty-seven of the Act of 1863 provides, that “the Board of Trustees of any school district may, when in their judgment it is advisable, call an election and submit to the qualified electors of the district the question whether a tax shall be raised to furnish additional school facilities for said district, or to keep any school or schools in such district open for a longer period than the ordinary funds will allow, or for building an additional school house or houses, or for any two or all of these purposes.” It points out the mode of submitting the question to a vote of the people of the district, and in case the proposition is adopted, it further provides, that “ The Trustees shall issue certificates of election, and the Assessor shall, on receiving his, forthwith ascertain and enroll, in the manner provided for County Assessors, all the taxable persons and property in the district, and within thirty days he shall return his roll, footed up, to the Trustees. The Trustees, upon receiving the roll, shall deduct fifteen per cent therefrom for anticipated delinquencies, and then, by dividing the sum voted, together with the estimated cost of assessing and collecting added thereto, by the remainder of the roll, ascertain the rate per cent required; and the rate so ascertained (using the full cent in place of any fraction) shall be and it is hereby levied and assessed to, on, or against the persons or property named or described in said roll, and it shall be a lien on all such property until the tax is paid; and said tax, if not paid within the time limited in the next succeeding section for its payment, shall be recovered by suit, in the same manner and with the same costs as delinquent State and county taxes.” (Laws 1863, p. 203.)
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)