People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Mining Co.
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Assessment Roll. — Arrangement of Columns and Headings.—An assessment roll, in which the columns are arranged in a different order, or under different headings, from the form given in Section 20 of the Revenue Act of 1861, may, nevertheless, be a substantial compliance with all the requirements of that section and valid.
Idem. —Name of Tax-Payee.—An assessment roll, in which the name appears in the proper place and column, is not invalid because the name extends beyond the line of that column, nor because there is a slight discrepancy in the name— the name given being sufficiently accurate to indicate the person intended.
Idem.—Valuation of Peesonal Peopebty and Impbovements on Real Estate. An assessment of personal property and improvements on real estate, assessed to a person other than the owner of the real estate, which does not separately value and set down in separate columns the values of the different parcels and descriptions of property, is not in compliance with the revenue laws, and therefore invalid.
New Tbial. —A new trial is not necessary where all the necessary facts are found upon which to base a judgment, and a mere computation is required to ascertain the amount for which judgment shall he entered.
Temple, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Sprague, J., Wallace, J., and Rhodes, C. J., concurring:
This is an action for the collection of delinquent taxes in Sierra County. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and this appeal is from the judgment, no motion having been made for a new trial.
.¡Numerous objections are made to the assessment for irregularity, most of which, however, are not difficult of solution. The twentieth section of the Revenue Act of 1861 expressly provides that the assessment roll shall be substantially in the form given in that Act, and there can be no question that an assessment roll, in which the columns are arranged in a different order from the form given, or which have different headings indicating the contents of the columns from those there found, may, nevertheless, be a substantial compliance with all the requirements of that section. And such, we think, is the form used by the Assessor of Sierra County, as shown in this case—so far, at least, as could possibly
[513]DESCRIPTION OP-PROPERTY.
affect the assessment in question. In the connection in which the words are used, there is no ambiguity in the phrases “value personal” and “value real;” and although when taken in connection with some of the requirements of the revenue laws, the phrase “ value of improvements on land ” may be somewhat ambiguous; yet, as no values are placed in that column against these defendants, they are not injured thereby.
We think the objection that the name of the corporation defendant is not found in the proper column, under the head of “Tax-payers’ Names,” because some portion of the name extends beyonds the line of that column, is hypercritical. The name is found in the proper place, is easily read and the circumstances creates no confusion or trouble. If such objections were fatal, very few assessments would be held valid.
It is objected that the property in question was not assessed to the person, firm, corporation, association or company owning or having the possession, charge or control thereof, or to an unknown owner, as required by the revenue law, and therefore there was no valid assessment. The fact upon which this objection is founded, is, that the property is assessed to the Sierra Buttes Quartz Company, when the real name of the corporation defendant is, and [514]
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)