County of El Dorado v. Meiss
Before: Haven
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—Validity of County O ruínanos—License Tax— Municipal Taxes.—A county ordinance imposing a license tax upon “every person engaged in the business of raising, grazing, herding, or pasturing sheep and goats, or sheep or goats” within the county is authorized by subdivision 27 of section 25 of the County Government Act, which is constitutional and valid by the terms of section 12 of article XI of the constitution, giving to the legislature the power to vest in the corporate authorities of counties, cities, and towns the power to assess and collect taxes for municipal purposes. A license tax is a tax within the meaning of that section.
Id.—Tax Upon Non-residents—Discrimination.—The fact that such ordinance is general, and applies to non-residents as well as residents of the county carrying on such business within the county, instead of being an objection to the validity of the tax is essential to sustain its validity. A county cannot discriminate between its own citizens and those of other counties in the disposition of a license tax for carrying on any business in such county.
Id.—Void Appointment of License Tax Collector—Power of Supervisors.—The board of supervisors of a county have no power to create the office of license tax collector for the county. The duty of providing for the election or appointment of all necessary county officers is devolved upon the legislature by section 5 of article XI of the constitution, and an ordinance of the hoard of supervisors creating such an office is void.
Id.—Action by County to Recover License Tax—Void Direction by Tax Collector—Power of County to Sue.—The right of a county to sue for the amount of a license tax fixed by a valid ordinance is not dependent upon the validity of part of the ordinance creating the office of tax collector and appointing a person to fill it; and the fact that the ordinance prescribes that suit shall be brought in the name of the county, by direction of the license tax- collector named therein, and that the appointment of the tax collector under the ordinance is void, does not deprive the county of its general power to sue and enforce payment of the license.
Id.—Shearing of Sheep Temporarily in County—License Not Required.—The act of a sheep-owner in taking a hand of sheep from one county into another, and in keeping them there temporarily on his own farm for the purpose of shearing them, without procuring a license therefor, is not a violation of an ordinance of the latter county requiring “ every person engaged in the business of raising, grazing, herding or pasturing sheep” within such county to procure a license therefor, the facts showing no intended evasion of the ordinance.
De Haven, J. On March 3,1891, the board of supei’visors of El Dorado county passed an ordinance requiring “every person engaged in the business of raising, grazing, herding or pasturing sheep and goats, or sheep or goats,” in that county, to procure from the license tax collector a license therefor. The ordinance made it the duty of the license collector to collect the license, and further provided that he might enforce the collection, “ as provided by section 3360 of the Political Code”; that is, by action brought for that purpose in the name of the people of the State.
In April, 1891, the supervisors of the county passed another ordinance, providing generally for the collec[271]tion of all license taxes in that county, and for that purpose undertook to create the office of license tax collector, and by section 3 of this ordinance it was declared:
“Sec. 3. The board of supervisors, at its first regular session in each year, shall appoint a qualified elector of the county such license tax collector for the term of one-year next following such appointment; provided that, until the appointment of said collector at the January session of said board, in the year 1892, T. B. Epps shall be and he is hereby constituted such license tax collector in and for said county.”
And by section 6 of the same ordinance “ said license tax collector” was authorized, upon the failure of any person to pay the license tax imposed by any ordinance, to direct a suit to be brought against such person, in the name of the county, for the recovery of such license tax; and it was further provided that such tax should be deemed to be a debt due the county of El Dorado.
The defendant herded and pastured a band of sheep in the county of El Dorado during the summer of 1891, and, having failed to pay the license imposed by the ordinance first referred to in this opinion, the present action was brought to recover the same.
The superior court, in addition to the foregoing facts, also found that the defendant was a resident of the county of Sacramento during the time his sheep were pastured in El Dorado, and that said sheep were upon the farm of defendant in Sacramento County on the first Monday in March, 1891, and were duly assessed in that county for that year, and that defendant paid the taxes thereon for that year in the county of Sacramento; and upon these facts the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
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)