People v. Hagar
Before: Crockett
Synopsis
Commissioners to Assess Land.—If a Board of Commissioners is created by statute to assess a tax upon swamp and overflowed land for the purpose of reclaiming the same, and the statute requires such Board to jointly view and assess the land, all the commissioners must be present, and they must jointly view and assess, or the assessment will be void. Idem.—If such Board of Commissioners, in their report, state that they jointly viewed and assessed the land, when in fact they were not all present, the report is not conclusive of the question if the statute does not require them to thus report, nor even prima facie evidence of the fact, but the assessment may be attacked in a collateral action to recover the tax.
Idem.—The question not decided whether such report would be conclusive if the statute required the Commissioners to report that they jointly viewed and assessed the land.
By the Court, Crockett, J.: The Court finds that the Commissioners “did not jointly view and assess the land upon which the tax in suit was assessed; but made their return upon their assessment roll, that they had jointly viewed and assessed it.” In People v. Coghill (47 Cal. 361), we held that a failure by the Commissioners to jointly view and assess the land was fatal to the assessment, and we adhere to that opinion.
It is contended that the return by the Commissioners on the assessment roll, that they had jointly viewed and assessed the land, is conclusive on that point, in a collateral action, and that all proof to the contrary should have been disregarded. Whatever may have been the rule, if the statute had required the Commissioners to state in their certificate to the assessment roll that they had jointly viewed and assessed the land, it is clear that the certificate can have no such conclusive effect, unless it was incumbent on the Commissioners, to certify that they acted jointly in viewing and assessing the land. But as the statute does not require them to state that fact in the certificate, their having voluntarily done so, was a superfluous act; and instead of being conclusive of the fact that they acted jointly, was not even prima facie evidence of it.
Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.
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)