County of San Luis Obispo v. Felts
Before: Beatty, Fitzgerald, Harrison, Haven, McFarland
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.
The defendant Felts entered into the office of assessor of ^Jie county of San Luis Obispo on the fifth day of January, 1891. The state poll taxes mentioned in the opinion were collected and received by him between the 9th of October, 1891, and the 30th of September, 1893. The road poll taxes were collected and received between the 6th of March and the 30th of September, 1893. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
.In investigating the legislative policy in reference to state poll taxes, their collection and the compensation allowed assessors, it is unnecessary to go back further than the codes. Section 3839 of the Political Code provided for the tax, and with two amendments made in 1874 and 1880 the section has been practically unchanged. Section 3862 of the same code, provides: “The assessor, for services rendered in the collection of poll taxes, shall receive the sum of fifteen per cent.” This section, although amended in 1874 and 1878, has always retained the words quoted, and the same provision is made for compensation in section 1857. The County Government Bill, in each enactment, makes the same allowance to the assessor. (Stats. 1883, sec. 164, p. 361; Stats. 1885, sec. 164, p. 125; Stats. 1887, sec. 211, p. 207; Stats. 1889, sec. 211, p. 300; Stats. 1891, sec. 216, p. 416; Stats. 1893, sec. 216, p. 507.) This couii; has decided that he had a right to retain the amount of six per cent on all personal property taxes collected by him, under the sections of the County Government Act cited, and as the allowance for fees for the collection of poll taxes is, in each instance, made in the same section, it would necessarily follow that he had a right to retain that also. (San Mateo County v. Maloney, 71 Cal. 205, 208.) Road poll taxes were provided for upon the adoption of the codes (Pol. Code, sec. 2652), and boards of supervisors given power to levy the same, and were to be collected in the same manner as state poll taxes. The section cited was amended in 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 478), but not changed in any particular affecting the question under discussion. The different county government acts above , cited provided that the assessor should have his compensation “ on all amounts collected by him for poll taxes,” and was unchanged until 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 507), when it was provided that he should have his compensation “ on all amounts collected by him for poll taxes and road poll taxes,” the italicized words being added, no doubt, to prevent any misconception and obviate all question as to the meaning of the words “poll taxes/' The manifest object, the settled policy, and uniformity of the legislation on the subject, seems to leave it clear that the assessor was to have his fifteen per cent upon all character of head or poll taxes collected by him.
Beatty, C. J. This is an action brought by the county against the county assessor and his sureties to recover the amount of certain percentages of personal property taxes and of the state and road poll taxes, claimed and withheld by him as his legal compensation for making the collections.
The complaint contains three counts, the first, for three hundred and fifty dollars, being six per cent of the personal property tax; the second, for three hundred and fifty dollars, being fifteen per cent of the state poll tax; and the third, for three hundred and ten dollars, being fifteen per cent of the road poll taxes. On the first cause of action the superior court gave judgment for the defendants. On the second and third causes of action the judgment was in favor of the plain[63]tiff, and from this part of the judgment the defendants appeal.
In support of their appeal the defendants cite various provisions of the Political Code and the county government law, which clearly authorize the assessor to retain as his compensation for his services fifteen per cent of all poll taxes collected by him; but the respondent contends that, as to the state poll tax, all these provisions are in conflict with the mandate of the constitution which appropriates that tax exclusively to the support of the public schools; and, with respect to the road poll tax, the contention is that no law in existence prior to the election of this assessor gave him the collection of the road poll tax, and to allow him a percentage for collecting it under a law passed subsequent to his election would be to increase his compensation contrary to the inhibition of the constitution against any increase of the compensation of public officers after their election. The first section of the constitution cited by counsel for respondent in support of its contention is section 12 of article XIII, which reads as follows:
“ The legislature shall provide for the levy and collection of an annual poll tax of not less than two dollars on every male inhabitant of this state over twenty-one and under sixty years of a^e, except paupers, idiots, insane persons, and Indians not taxed. Said tax shall be paid into the state school fund.”
In connection with this they also cite section 6 of article IX, which reads as follows:
“The public school system shall include primary and grammar schools, and such high schools, evening schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may be established by the legislature, or by municipal or district authority; but the entire revenue derived from the state school fund and the state school tax shall be applied exclusively to the support of primary and grammar schools.”
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)