People v. Ashbury

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.: Upon petition of the Attorney General, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued and served upon the respondent, who has made answer thereto. The cause was argued and submitted for decision upon the petition and the answer, no essential issue of fact appearing upon the record.

It appears that on the first day of July, 1872, the Assessor of the City and County of San Francisco, having completed the assessment book, delivered it to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and that among other assessments therein appearing, were the following:

- “No. 4,573—Masonic Savings and Loan Bank, assessed at §365,000; No. 4,578—Savings and Loan Society, assessed at §7,968,740 40; No. 4,577—Societe Francaise d’Epargnes, assessed at §4,957,583 73; No. 4,571—German Savings and Loan Society, assessed at §2,629,021; No. 4,574—Odd Fellows’ Savings Bank, assessed at §3,080,793; No. 4,579—San Francisco Savings Union, assessed at §4,227,940; No. 4,572— Hibernia Savings and Loan Society, assessed at §11,354,532; No. 4,157—Land Mortgage Union of California, assessed at §33,916; No. 4,294—Security Savings Bank, assessed at §313,962 77; No.--Humboldt Savings and Loan Society, assessed at §507,303.”

The Board of Supervisors sitting thereafter for the purpose of equalizing assessments, entered upon its records an order purporting to cancel' each and all of these enumerated assessments, and on the next day thereafter the Clerk of the [618]Board delivered the assessment book to the Auditor. The assessment book, as thus delivered to the Auditor, was verified by the affidavit of the Clerk of the Board in the manner required by law, and to the effect that all the alterations directed by the Board had been made and entered thereon.

The assessment book, as thus delivered to the Auditor, showed upon its face the fact that the several assessments above -enumerated had been canceled, or attempted to be canceled, upon the book, by the order of the Board; but it is not pretended that the original entry of these assessments had been so canceled or erased as to be rendered illegible in any respect. It appears that the Auditor, however, in making up the duplicate assessment book, which he is required to deliver to the Tax Collector, refuses to copy thereon.any of these enumerated assessments, on the ground that he has no authority to do so. It is urged in support of the correctness of this position, that it is the duty of the respondent, as Auditor, in making up the copy for the Collector, to observe and follow such alterations as appear to have been made thereon by the direction of the Board, and that he has no authority to disregard them in any instance. It may be admitted that if the alteration appearing to have been made by the Board be one within, or which might under any conceiyable circumstances be within the power and authority of the Board to make upon the assessment roll, it would be the duty of the Auditor to observe it in making the duplicate tax book for the use of the Collector. Thus, an order of the Board increasing or reducing the valuation of property borne upon the assessment book being the determination of a complaint made in regard to the Assessor’s value of the property, under sections three thousand six hundred and seventy-three and three thousand .six hundred and seventy-four of the Act, could not be properly disregarded by the Auditor in subsequently making the copy of