People v. Empire Gold & Silver Mining Co.

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1867Published

Before: Sawyer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the assessment of property was valid because the property was sufficiently identified and the omission of dollar marks before individual items did not invalidate the assessment when the aggregate sum was clearly marked in dollars. Additionally, the court ruled that the clerk's minutes were not part of the record on appeal and that a motion to strike was too general to be considered.

Issues

Whether the clerk's minutes are part of the record on appeal.
Whether a motion to strike that fails to specify objectionable matter is sufficient.
Whether an assessment is void for failing to prefix a dollar mark to every individual item when the aggregate is clearly marked.
Whether a judgment will be reversed if it is less than the amount the defendant actually owed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Clerk’s minutes of the trial are no part of the transcript on appeal.”

“The object of the description is, to clearly identify the property assessed, and the object is manifestly accomplished in this assessment.”

“The defendant has no reason to complain if the judgment is less than it ought to be. It will not be reversed on that ground on his appeal.”

Synopsis

Transcript on Appeal.—The Clerk’s minutes of the trial are no part of the transcript on appeal. The matters therein contained could only be made part of the record, in the mode prescribed by the Practice Act. Moore v. Del Valle, 28 Cal. 174:, Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 107, and Abbott v. Douglass, 28 Cal. 299, are cited as authority.

Motion to Strike Out.—A motion, made to strike out portions of a complaint, that does not specifically point out the objectionable matter, is too general, and the Court might properly deny the motion on that ground.

Assessment Roll.—The object of a description of property in an assessment roll is to clearly identify the property assessed. An assessment roll which describes minutely each particular piece of improvement on land assessed, with the value of each, separately stated, in a column of item figures, so arranged that there can be no mistake as to the property intended to be assessed, and where, in addition, the aggregate value of the same is stated under the general head “ Value oi improvements on lands,” is clearly sufficient.

Idem.—Where the description of the property assessed is placed under the head “ Improvements on land,” and the aggregate value of the same is carried out in figures, preceded by the dollar mark, under the general head of Value of improvements on lands,” the assessment is correctly made.

Idem.—Where the figures representing the aggregate value of the property assessed are placed in the column headed by “ Value of improvements on lands,” and preceded by the dollar mark, such an.assessment is not void in consequence of the omission of the dollar mark preceding the figures in the column representing the separate values of the items, for if the aggregate figures represent dollars, so also the smaller sums, in figures, which go to make up those in the aggregate, must represent dollars.

Conflict of Testimony.—Where the record discloses a conflict of testimony, and that there was some testimony showing that the Assessor had done everything necessary to make a valid assessment, such an assessment will not be held fatally defective on appeal.

Dollar Marks.—Where, in an item column of figures, the dollar mark is prefixed to some, but not to all the items, Held, that all the figures standing in the same column and in the same relation to other similar items, must be construed to be dollars, without a repetition of the mark before each*

By the Court; Sawyer, J.: The Clerk’s minutes of the trial are no part of the transcript on appeal. The matters therein contained could only be made a part of the record on appeal in the mode prescribed by the Practice Act. (Moore v. Del Valle, 28 Cal. 174; Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 107; Abbott v. Douglass, 28 Cal. 299.) It does not appear, therefore, by anything in the record upon which we are permitted to act, what the ruling on the motion to strike out was. Besides, if it did, the notice to strike out is too general. It does not point out the specific objectionable matter, but leaves the Court to find it out, here and there, in the complaint, and determine what particular matter answers to the loose description given in the notice. The Court may have refused—and properly—to strike it out on that ground.

"Upon the merits, we think the property correctly assessed under the general head of improvements on lands. But, in addition to the aggregate value being placed under the general head, “ value of improvements on lands,each particular piece of improvement is described by itself with unusual [174]minuteness and particularity, and separately valued in a column of items, so that there can he no mistake as to the identity of the property intended to be assessed. The object of the description is, to clearly identify the property assessed, and the object is manifestly accomplished in this assessment. It is clearly sufficient.

It is next insisted that the assessment is void in consequence of the omission of the dollar mark in the valuation. It is conceded, however, that there is a dollar mark prefixed to the figures 76,700, in the column headed “ value of improvements on lands,” thus : $76,700. This sum is manifestly the aggregate of the several items in the sub-column to the left, footed up in the usual form, where the items are set down in a separate column and footed up, and the sum carried into the column for the aggregate of the items of the same kind to the right. There can be no misunderstanding this on the face of the record. If, then, we concede that the dollar mark is not prefixed to any, or all the items in the sub-column, the record still affords the data for determining upon its face what the figures were intended to represent; for, when footed up, and the sum carried out in the aggregate, the dollar mark is prefixed, and shows that the aggregate represents dollars and decimals of a dollar. If the aggregate represents dollars, of course the several smaller sums, which go to make it up, must necessarily be dollars. We think the assessment itself, therefore, affords the means of determining what the figures were intended to represent, without recourse to evidence aliunde.

People v. Empire Gold & Silver Mining Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief