Bode v. Holtz
Synopsis
Taxation—'Warehouseman—Assessment.—An assessor may demand of a warehouseman, who has in his possession personal property of another subject to taxation, the name of the owner and a description of the property. If this be refused, it is the duty of the assessor to note the refusal upon the assessment book, and make an estimate of the value of the property.
The Court. The complaint shows upon its face that the plaintiffs, at 12 o’clock M. on the first Monday in March, 1883, had in their possession some personal property belonging to citizens of the city and county of San Francisco which was subject to taxation, and that after demand made upon them by the assessor of [107]that city and county they refused to disclose the names of the owners or the description of the property. The law made it the duty of the plaintiffs to furnish the assessor with a statement of the property in their possession. (Pol. Code, § 3629.) Failing in that regard, the assessor was authorized and required by section 3633 of the same Code to note such refusal on the assessment book, and to make an estimate of the value of the property.
Judgment affirmed.
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)