Oreña v. Sherman (1882) · DecisionDepot

Oreña v. Sherman

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

California Supreme Court Jul 26, 1882 No. No. 7,998Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Section 3633 of the Political Code is constitutional because it is not inconsistent with Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution. Furthermore, an assessment book entry noting a taxpayer's neglect to return a statement is legally sufficient.

Issues

Whether Section 3633 of the Political Code is unconstitutional due to inconsistency with Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution.
Whether an assessment book entry stating a taxpayer 'neglected to return statement' satisfies the statutory requirement to note a refusal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 3633 of the Political Code, can not be held to be unconstitutional unless it be inconsistent with some provision of the Constitution, and as we read Section 8 of Article xiii. of the Constitution there is no inconsistency”

“We think that the entry on the assessment book opposite the name of appellant, that he had “neglected to return statement as required by Section 3629, Political Code,” sufficient.”

Synopsis

Assessment—Statement—Equalization—Constitutional Law.—Section 3633 of the Pol. Code, providing that if any person after demand made by the Assessor neglects or refuses to give under oath the statement provided for in § 3629 Pol. C. etc. the Assessor must note the refusal on the assessment book opposite his name and must make an estimate of the value of the property of such person, and that the value so fixed by the Assessor must not be reduced by the Board of Supervisors, is not unconstitutional.

Id.—Id.—An entry on the assessment book opposite the name-of the party assessed that he had “neglected to return a statement as required by § 3629 Pol. C.” is sufficient.

The Court : Section 3633 of the Political Code, can not be held to be unconstitutional unless it be inconsistent with some provision of the Constitution, and as we read Section 8 of Article xiii. of the Constitution there is no inconsistency between said section of the Code and the Constitution. As we construe the Constitution, that section of the Code might be enacted now.

We think that the entry on the assessment book opposite the name of appellant, that he had “neglected to return statement as required by Section 3629, Political Code,” sufficient. The law says that the Assessor “must note the refusal on the assessment book,” etc. It seems to us that the entry which he made was the equivalent of that.

Judgment affirmed.

Oreña v. Sherman

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief