Meek v. McClure

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 3,935Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a taxpayer seeking to recover taxes paid under protest must state the specific grounds of illegality in the protest to provide the tax collector notice, and the plaintiff's general protest was insufficient to recover taxes paid on an increased valuation.

Issues

Whether the assessment was void because the County Assessor was allegedly not authorized to hold office.
Whether assessments made by a deputy assessor are invalid.
Whether a protest of tax payment must specify the grounds of illegality to be sufficient for recovery.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The authority of the Legislature to provide that Assessors may appoint deputies, with power to perform official acts for them and in the names of their respective principals, is, in our opinion, beyond all question.”

“Wherever a protest is essential, it is, therefore, necessary to state the grounds upon which the party paying the money claims that the demand is illegal.”

“The protest, in our opinion, was not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to maintain an action to recover back the amount paid on account of the increase of the valuation of the property.”

Synopsis

Assessoe mat Appoint Deputies.—The Legislature has the authority to provide that assessors may appoint deputies with power to perform official acts in the names oí their principals, and an assessment made by such deputies is valid.

Enromo op Facts,—If there are no findings of facts as such filed, and the Court renders a decision in writing in which certain facts are recited, the facts recited in the decision will be accepted by the Appellate Court as having been found.

Compdaint m Action to Recoveb Back Taxes Paid.—There is no rule of pleading which requires a party who sues an officer to recover back money illegally exacted from him, to aver in his complaint the precise amount of money which was illegally exacted, but he may recover an amount less than that stated in the complaint.

Recovery of Money paid under Duress.—If money illegally exacted is paid, under coercion, to a party for his own use, no protest is necessary in order to lay the foundation for an action to recover it back.

Payment or Money to an Oeeioer under Duress.—If a public officer who illegally demands money of a person and exacts the payment thereof by coercion has notice of the facts which render the demand illegal, the party who pays him the money need not make the payment under protest in order to be able to recover it back, but if the officer has no notice of such illegality, 'a protest is necessary.

Idem.—When a protest is necessary to enable a party who pays money to an officer, illegally exacted, to recover it back, the protest must state the grounds upon which the party paying the money claims that the demand is illegal.

Money Paid Under Protest.—If a Board of Equalization increases the assessed value of a tax-payer’s property without having acquired jurisdiction to do ’ so, and the money is paid to the Tax Collector under protest and under coercion, and there is nothing in the assessment roll or documents which come to the hands of the Tax Collector to notify him that the action of the Board of Equalization was illegal, the protest must notify him of that fact.

By the Court, Rhodes, J.: This is an action to recover back from the Tax Collector of Alameda County, the amount of money paid by the plaintiff under protest, the same being the amount claimed by the Tax Collector to be due for the taxes upon certain real estate and the personal property of the plaintiff, and for the percentage, costs, etc., which accrued because of [626]the failure of the plaintiff to pay the taxes at the time prescribed by law. The Court ordered judgment for the defendant and subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the ground “ that there is no error in the judgment.” The decision of the Court will be regarded as a denial of the motion, although “ error in the judgment” is not specified as one of the grounds of the plaintiff’s motion, and is not a statutory ground of such motion.

The plaintiff contends that the whole tax is void, because the property was not duly assessed; and that if not void in whole it is void in part, because the valuation of two of the tracts was illegally increased by the Board of Equalization.

It is contended that Hunt was not the County Assessor— that there was no law authorizing the election of a County Assessor in that County at the time when he was elected, and that therefore the assessment is void. This question was presented, in People v. Hunt, (41 Cal. 435,) and it was then held that Hunt was the County Assessor—that the law in force at the time of his election authorized the election of a County Assessor. That was not an open question in this Court when the ease was presented.

It is also urged that the assessments are invalid because made by the Assessor’s deputies; that the law requires the Assessor himself to determine the valuation to be placed on property; that he had no right to act by deputy. This position is manifestly untenable. The authority of the Legislature to provide that Assessors may appoint deputies, with power to perform official acts for them and in the names of their respective principals, is, in our opinion, beyond all question.

The Court rendered a decision in writing, in which- certain facts are recited; and as no findings as such were filed, the facts recited in the decision will be taken and accepted as found. The other facts in issue are, by implication, to be considered as found for the prevailing party—the defendant. It is stated in the decision that “ there was, in fact, no complaint filed before the Board that the assessment made by the Assessor was too low; ” and it is admit

Meek v. McClure

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief