Bank of Santa Rosa v. Chalfant (1877) · DecisionDepot

Bank of Santa Rosa v. Chalfant

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 5172Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A payment of taxes made under a threat to sell property is considered voluntary and cannot be recovered if the tax was not delinquent and the official lacked the authority to execute the threat at the time.

Issues

Whether a tax payment made under a threat of property sale constitutes involuntary payment recoverable by law.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged coercion or legal duress to support a claim for recovery of taxes.

Disposition. Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As there was no legal duress of person or property, the payment must be considered as voluntary, and, upon well settled principles, cannot be recovered.”

“Force or coercion is a necessary precedent to a protest.”

Synopsis

Tax Paid undbb Pbotest.—To enable one to recover back a tax illegally assessed, and paid under protest, it must appear tbat the tax was delinquent, and that the officer to whom it was paid was armed with authority, real or pretended, to seize property, and threatened to do so.

If coercion existed and was exercised by the Tax Collector, the complaint should have shown it. Force or coercion is a necessary precedent to a protest. (Brummagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 271; Buchnall v. Story, 46 Cal. 598, 599; Forbes v. Appleton, 5 Cush. 117; Mays v. Cincinnati, 1 Ohio, 268; Union Bank v. New York, 51 Barb. 159; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 417.)

Lamar & Johnson, for the Despondent.

There was no legal process by which plaintiff could have prevented the defendant from executing his threat.

[171]“ An injunction will not lie to restrain the collection of taxes by sale of property of the tax-payer.” (Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646; C. P. R. R. v. Corcoran, 48 Cal. 65.)

By the Court : The only averments of the complaint tending to show compulsion or coercion were, that the defendant demanded payment of the alleged illegal tax, and threatened to sell the property of plaintiff in ease of non-payment. But it does not appear that the tax was then delinquent, or that the defendant was, at that time, armed with any authority, real or apparent, to carry out his threat. As there was no legal duress of person or property, the payment must be considered as voluntary, and, upon well settled principles, cannot be recovered. (Panic of Woodland v. Webber, 52 Cal. 78; Bucknal v. Story, 46 Cal. 598.) The demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Bank of Santa Rosa v. Chalfant

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief