Blythe v. Gately
Before: Crockett
Synopsis
Contract in Lease to Pax Taxes on Demised Pbopebtx.—If, in a lease of real estate for a term of years ending on the 12th day of October, 1874, the lessee covenants to pay all taxes that are assessed on the demised premises during the term, he is bound to pay the taxes of the fiscal year 1874-5, which become a lien on the first Monday in March, 1874, and are assessed between the first Monday in March and the first Monday in July, 1874.
Idem.—The clause in said lease, at the end of the covenant, “ including the taxes for the fiscal year 1873-4, ” does not have the effect of limiting the covenant, and is to be treated as surplusage.
By the Court, Crockett, J.: The lease declared upon was for a term of fifteen years, commencing on the 12th day of October, 1859, and amongst others contained the following provisions, viz.: That the rents should be payable, “free and clear of all charges, assessments and payments whatsoever assessed or imposed [238]upon the said premises, or any part thereof, in anywise whatsoever, during the continuance of the said term,” and that “the said party of the second part (the lessee), his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, shall and will, at their own proper costs and charges, bear, pay and discharge all such taxes, duties and assessments whatsoever, extraordinary as well as ordinary, as shall or may during the term hereby granted be charged, assessed or imposed upon the said demised premises, including the taxes for the fiscal year 1873-4.” The lease expired October 12, 1874, and the lessee having failed to pay the taxes for the fiscal year commencing July 1,1874, they were paid by the lessor, and the action is to recover the amount so paid from the estate of the lessee. The questions to be determined are, first, wrhether the taxes for 1874-5 were “ charged, assessed or imposed upon the demised premises ” during the term, within the true intent of the clauses of the lease above quoted; and second, what effect, if any, is to be given to the words “including the taxes for the fiscal year 1873-4.” As to the first point, it is clear, we think, that the taxes for 1874-5 were charged, assessed and imposed upon the land during the term, within the intent of the lease, and should therefore be paid by the lessee, unless the stipulations that the lessee should pay the taxes for 1873-4, should lead to a different conclusion. As the law for the assessment and collection of taxes stood during the fiscal year 1874^5, it was the duty of [the assessor, between the first Mondays in March and July, to assess all real estate, and a lien for the tax attached as of the first Monday in March. Between the first and fourth Mondays of July, it was the duty of the Board of Equalization to equalize the taxes, and the duplicate assessment-roll was then delivered to the collector, who immediately proceeded to collect, and had authority to receive the taxes. If not paid before the first Monday of the succeeding January, they then became delinquent, and five per cent, was added thereto. It is clear from these provisions that the tax on the demised premises for the fiscal year 1874-5 were payable, and had become a lien on the land prior to October 12, 1874, when the lease ex[239]
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)