City of Santa Barbara v. Eldred
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Pleading — Ambiguity—Uncertainty — Conclusions of Law—Demurrer.—Objections that a complaint is ambiguous or uncertain, or that essential facts appear only inferentially, or as conclusions of law, or by way of recitals, must be raised by special demurrer, and cannot be reached on general demurrer.
City Taxes — Assessment-list — Description of Property.—Where the assessment-list for taxes of the city of Santa Barbara is headed in the first column over taxpayers’ names “ Description of Property according to Map-book of the City of Santa Barbara,” under which are the words “City Lot,”and the succeeding columns are headed “Lot” and “Block” under which are given respectively the number of the lot and the num-
her of the block, the assessment-list is sufficient to show that the lot assessed is situated within the city.
Id.—Time of Ownership of Property Assessed—Map-book.—It is not essential to the assessment that the list should state that the taxpayer owned the property assessed on the first Monday of March, nor that the city had a map-book.
Id.—Entries by Tax-collector.—Entries by the tax-collector upon the assessment-list intended to show that a portion of the tax has been paid do no injury.
Id.—Pleading—City Ordinance—Special Demurrer.—A city ordinance which provides for the levy and collection of city taxes should be fully set out in a complaint for city taxes, at least in effect; but where the allegations respecting the ordinance are uncertain or defective, without a total absence of a material fact, they are sufficient to support á finding for the collection of the taxes, in the absence of a special demurrer. Id.—Authority of Tax-collector—Resolution of Common Council— Suit for Taxes upon Real Estate.—Where a city ordinance which provides for the levy and collection of taxes authorizes the common council of the city to pass a resolution to the effect that, where real estate has been offered for sale upon which the taxes amounted to less than three hundred dollars, and there is no purchaser in good faith, the tax-collector shall proceed to collect the same by civil action in the name of the city, such resolution authorizes the bringing of an action by the tax-collector, for the collection of taxes on real estate, if the complaint recites a case falling within the resolution.
Id.—Interest upon Taxes—Pleading — Finding against Evidence— Modification of Judgment.—Where no interest upon the amount of taxes due is claimed in the complaint, and there is no allegation under which interest could be allowed, and the evidence does not justify a finding that interest was due, the objection to the allowance of interest must be sustained upon appeal, and the judgment must be modified by striking out the interest.
Temple, J. This is the second appeal in this case (see 95 Cal. 378), and is taken from the judgment and from a refusal of a new trial.
The action was brought to collect a municipal tax, and to the complaint a general demurrer was interposed. It was overruled, and defendant answered. He now specifies a great many alleged defects in the complaint. Many of them are, in effect, that the complaint is ambiguous or uncertain. Such objections cannot be reached on general demurrer. Nor can the other objections, which merely amount to criticisms upon the [298]sufficiency of the statement, as that the essential facts appear only infereutially, or as conclusions of law, or by way of recitals, prevail on such demurrer. There must be a total absence of some material fact to justify us in sustaining a demurrer of-this character.
The only points which I think worthy of notice on the demurrer are the objections to the assessment.
It is claimed that it is invalid because:
1. It does not show that the real estate is situated within the city of Santa Barbara. The first column after taxpayers’ names is headed “ Description of Property according to Map-book of the City of Santa Barbara.” The next column is headed “ Lot,” and the next “ Block.” In the first of these columns are the words “ City Lot.” In the second “2,” in the third “ 110.” I think this sufficient to show that the property is in Santa Barbara.
2. It is not essential to the assessment that it should state that the taxpayer owned the property assessed on the first Monday of March, or that the city had a map-book.
3. The slovenly entries by the tax-collector, intended to show that a portion of the tax had been paid, do no injury. Interpreted as claimed by appellant they are meaningless, and would do no harm.
4. There is no uncertainty in the figures which show the total value of all property after equalization.
Ordinance 113, which provides for the levy and collection of the tax, ought to have been more fully set out, at least in effect. The allegations are, however, sufficient to support a judgment, and as no special demurrer was interposed they are sufficient on this appeal.
The delinquent list as published stated that the tax and costs amounted to two hundred and forty-six dollars and ninety-one cents, when, as it is contended, the correct amount was two hundred and forty-five dollars and ninety-one cents, just one dollar too much.
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)