City of San Diego v. Linda Vista Irrigation District
Before: Haynes
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—Municipal Corporations—Exemption from Taxation—Pueblo Lands—Assessment by Irrigation District.—An assessment by an irrigation district upon the pueblo lands of a city situated within the district, which are unoccupied and uncultivated lands, susceptible of cultivation by irrigation, and which would be benefited thereby, is not a tax within the meaning of section I of article 13 of the constitution, exempting property of municipal corporations from taxation, and such pueblo lands may he sold by the irrigation district, for unpaid assessments thereon.
Id.—Extent of Exemption from Taxation.—The exemption of municipal property from taxation relates to general county and state taxes, and has no reference to assessments for improvements made under special laws of a local character.
Id.—Implied Exemption.—There can be no implied exemption of municipal property from taxation or assessment which is not held or used for municipal purposes, or devoted to a specific public use.
Id.—Power of Legislature over Pueblo Lands.—The legislature may empower a city to sell its pueblo lands, and may make it liable for an assessment for its proportion of expense incurred to secure a local benefit.
Haynes, C. The city of San Diego brought this action against said irrigation district and its directors and officers, to quiet its title to several parcels of land, containing in all nearly three thousand acres. The defendants answered the complaint, alleging its organization under the act of March 7,1887, “to provide for the [192]organization and government of irrigation districts,” etc. (Stats. 1887, p. 29), and the acts amendatory thereof. The district was organized August 24,1891, and in 1892 it made an assessment upon all the lands in said district, including those of the plaintiff described in the complaint, and plaintiff having failed to pay the assessment so made upon its said lands, the same were sold on February 23, 1893, to the said irrigation district. These lands were described in the complaint as pueblo lands of the said city, and the answer alleged “ that said real property, consisting of lands owned by said plaintiff, was acquired by it as pueblo lands, and held as such until the sale thereof as hereinafter stated, and that said lands now are, and at all the times herein referred to were, dry, vacant, unoccupied, and uncultivated agricultural lands, susceptible to cultivation by irrigation, and would be largely benefited by irrigation; that they could not and cannot be profitably cultivated without irrigation, and are practically valueless for any other uses than agricultural and horticultural.”
Plaintiff demurred to defendant’s answer, the demurrer was sustained, and, defendants declining to amend, judgment went against them, and they appeal therefrom.
The question to be determined is whether such lands as are described above, situated within an irrigation district, are exempt from assessment by such district, because they are owned and held by a municipal corporation.
Respondent contends that said assessment is a tax, and that these lands are exempt from taxation under section 1 of article XIII of the constitution, which reads as follows: “ All property in the state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law. The word ‘ property,’ as used in this article and section, is hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, dues, franchises, and all other matters and things, real, personal, and mixed, capable of private ownership; provided, that growing crops, property used exclusively for [193]
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)