People v. Whyler

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1871 No. No. 2,310Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the levy for Levee District No. 1 is a tax rather than an assessment, and that it satisfies constitutional requirements for equality and uniformity despite claims of disproportionate benefit or injury to specific properties.

Issues

Whether the charge imposed by the Act of March 25th, 1868, constitutes a tax or an assessment.
Whether the tax violates the constitutional requirement of equality and uniformity.
Whether alleged inequities in property valuation or assessment provide a defense against the collection of the tax.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no sufficient reason for holding that the charge is not, what the Legislature declared it to be—a tax.”

“A tax is equal and uniform, which reaches and bears with the like burden upon all the property within the given district, county, etc.”

“Absolute equality is unattainable, and the benefits derived, or to be derived, from the expenditure of the tax, cannot be taken into the account.”

Synopsis

Tax and Assessment.—A charge imposed on all the property of a district, to he used in constructing levees to protect the district from overflow, is a tax, and not an assessment.

Inequality of Taxation.—The fact that levees huilt to protect the land of a district from overflow, injure some of the land instead of benefiting it, does not render the tax unequal or void for want of uniformity.

Uniformity of Taxation.—If the property of a district is taxed to build levees to protect it from overflow, the facts that land which is injured by the levee is assessed at its former value, and land benefited by the levee is also assessed at its former value, do not render the tax liable to the objection of want of equality and uniformity.

Resisting Payment of Tax.—The payment of a tax cannot be resisted on the ground that the property on which it was levied was not assessed at its true value. One whose property is not assessed according to.its true value, must apply to the Board of Equalization.

Tax must be Levied on all Private Property.—An Act taxing the property of a district for a local improvement, which exempts personal property from its operation, is unconstitutional, because not levied on all the property in the district.

Taxation for Local Improvement.—A tax levied on the property of a given district, to pay for a local improvement, which is assessed upon the parcels of property in the district, in proportion to the benefits each parcel derives from the work, is unconstitutional. Such tax must be levied on all property according to its value.

Remission of Tax.—A clause, in an Act imposing a tax, which allows the Board of Supervisors to remit the tax upon such property as they may deem just, does not render the whole Act unconstitutional.

By the Court, Rhodes, C. J.: The Act of March 25th, 1868 (Stats. 1867-8, p. 316), set off a certain portion of Sutter County, as Levee District Ho. 1, and provided for the levying of a tax on all the property within the district, to provide the means for the construction of levees, etc., to protect the district from overflow. This action was brought for the collection of the tax assessed for that purpose, on the property of the defendant. The action is defended on two grounds. It is insisted that the charge is not a tax, but an assessment; and, also, that if it is a tax, the Act is unconstitutional, because it is not equal and [354]uniform, within the meaning of section thirteen, of Article XI, of the Constitution.

The principal reason urged in support of thé position that the charge is an assessment, is that it is levied for the purpose of making a local improvement. Acts almost innumerable have been passed, levying taxes for such purposes, and no cases are called to our attention which hold, that by reason of the purpose for which they were levied, they became assessments. Taxes for the construction of roads, bridges, and school houses are familiar instances. The funds to pay for the grading of a street, may be raised by taxes levied upon all the property of a town, should the law so. direct; but the tax does not become an assessment, because the latter is the mode usually adopted to raise the funds for that purpose. There is no sufficient reason for holding that the charge is not, what the Legislature declared it to be—a tax.

I see no valid objection to the tax, on the alleged ground of a want of equality and uniformity. In this connection the answer may be noticed, as the alleged inequality of the tax is there relied on, as a defense to the action. It is alleged that by the construction of the levee, the defendant’s property, instead of being benefited, is greatly damaged. It is scarcely possible that any work of public improvement of considerable magnitude can be constructed, that will not affect injuriously the property of some one; and the fact that such a result has accrued, is not a valid objection to the tax.

It is also alleged, that while the property of other persons, which was. greatly benefited by the construction of the levee, was assessed at its former value, that of the defendant was assessed at its former value, withoht regard to the injury occasioned by the construction of the levee. Those were matters to be regulated by the Board of Equalization; but if, on application to the Board of Equalization, the defendant

People v. Whyler

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief