Redwood City v. Grimmenstein (1886) · DecisionDepot

Redwood City v. Grimmenstein

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

California Supreme Court Jan 30, 1886 No. No. 8642Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the marshal's official bond covered all duties imposed by law, including tax collection, because the statute added tax collection duties to the existing office of marshal rather than creating a separate office.

Issues

Whether the marshal's official bond covers defaults in the performance of tax collection duties.
Whether the legislative act created a separate office of tax collector requiring a distinct bond.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our judgment, the bond of the marshal related to all duties imposed on him by law, as well that of collecting taxes as any others, and that the bond herein bound the sureties for his defaults in collecting the taxes.”

“New duties were added to the office of marshall, but no new office created.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County.

The action was brought on' the official bond of the defendant Grimmenstein, given by him to secure the faithful performance of his duties as marshal of the town of Redwood City, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been collected by him for taxes, and which he had failed to pay over to the town. The answers of the defendants alleged that the money was collected by Grimmenstein in his official capacity of tax collector and not of marshal. Demurrers by the plaintiff to the answers were overruled, and a judgment rendered dismissing the action as to the sureties on the bond. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Thornton, J. — Action against principal and sureties on the official bond of defendant Grimmenstein.

The court erred in rendering judgment for defendants, sureties of Grimmenstein. The judgment was rendered on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants, sureties of Grimmenstein on his bond. In that, [513]the complaint was ample in its allegations to show a liability on the part of defendants.

It appears that the town of Redwood City (plaintiff here) was first incorporated by an act of the legislature approved March 27, 1868. (See Stats. 1867-68, p. 411.) This act was amended by the act of March 30,1874. (Stats. 1873-74, p. 946.) This latter act, so far as concerns this case, remained in force and unaltered up to the time that this action was commenced. By section 13 of this latter act it was provided that “ the marshal shall be ex officio tax collector, and as such shall be vested with the same power and authority conferred on tax collectors of state and county taxes, and shall be governed by the laws of this state now or hereafter in force, except in so far as his duties shall be regulated or modified by ordinance. He shall keep a true and accurate account of all moneys collected by him, and from what source and what account received, and report the same to the treasurer on the first Monday of each month, which report shall be duly verified under oath. He shall give a receipt for all taxes and assessments, showing a description of the property, to the party paying the same.”

By this act the marshal had added to his duties those of tax collector. The language of the act (sec. 13) has plainly this meaning. He became such by virtue of his office of marshal. New duties were added to the office of marshall, but no new office created. That no new office was intended to be created is further shown by section 3 of this act, in which it is provided that the government of the town of Redwood City shall be vested in a board of trustees, consisting of five members, a marshal, assessor, treasurer, and police justice, and such other officers as are hereafter-authorized to be appointed by said board of trustees.

The failure to mention tax collector, while the marshal and other officers are mentioned, and the duties of tax collector imposed on him by section 13 above referred to, show clearly that the legislature did not intend by [514]

Redwood City v. Grimmenstein

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief