People v. Sargent
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Laws in Conflict With Each Other.—An Act authorizing the Board of Supervisors of a county to levy and collect, for county school purposes, a rate of taxation which will produce an amount not exceeding a given sum, and which rate may be as high as fifty cents on the one hundred dollar.3, is in conflict with, and repealed by, a subsequent Act passed for the whole State, in which it is provided that the Board of Supervisors of each county shall annually levy a school tax not exceeding thirty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of the property in the county.
Township Assessor.—A tax on the property in a township for a Township Road Fund, must be assessed by an Assessor elected by the electors of the township.
Power of County Assessor.—A County Assessor cannot assess the property of a township for a tax levied on the township property, to raise a fund for township purposes.
By the Court, Belcher, J.: This is an action for the collection of delinquent taxes in San Mateo County. The Court refused to render judgment for the plaintiffs, for the county school tax and the township road tax, and the plaintiffs appeal,
1. The county school tax was levied at the rate of fifty, cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property, under a special Act of the Legislature, passed March 12th, 1870, authorizing the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County to levy and collect for county school purposes, upon the whole amount of taxable property in the county, a rate of taxation which would produce an amount not exceeding nine thousand five hundred dollars. (Stats. 1869-70, p. 290.)
Afterwards, on the 4th of April, 1870, the Legislature passed a general school law for the State, whereby it was provided that “ the Board of Supervisors, except in the City and County of San Francisco, of each county, shall annually, at the time of levying other county taxes, levy a school tax, the maximum rate of which shall not exceed thirty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable property in the county.” (Stats. 1869-70, p. 824, See. 90.)
On the part of the defendant it was contended that the general law repealed the special law, and the Court so held.
We think there was a manifest conflict in the respect named, between the provisions of the two Acts, and that they could not stand together. (People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560.)
2. The township road tax was levied upon all the taxable property in the township, and the assessment therefor was made by the County Assessor.
By the Act of March 25th, 1868, concerning roads and [433]highways in the County of San Mateo (Stats. 1867-8, p. 283), the several townships in the county were charged with the construction, repairs, and management of all the public roads within their respective limits.
Section twelve of the Act reads as follows : “ The Boards ' of Trustees of the several townships of San Mateo County shall have the entire and exclusive management, control, and supervision of all the public roads in said county; each township managing, controlling, and supervising so much of the public roads as lie within their townships respectively; and all the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the construction, repairs, or keeping in order the public roads of said county shall be borne and paid by the several townships through which said roads pass—each township paying the expenses incurred in the construction and repairs of so much of said roads as may lie within their townships respectively.”
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)