Buswell v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

California Supreme Court Mar 23, 1897 No. S. F. Nos. 325; 366Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the time provisions for the county board of equalization to complete its work are directory rather than mandatory, and that the board's actions taken after the statutory deadline were valid under Section 3885 of the Political Code because they caused no injury to the taxpayer.

Issues

Whether the state board of equalization may delegate its authority to issue orders extending the time for county boards of equalization to sit.
Whether the time provisions in Section 3672 of the Political Code for the completion of equalization are mandatory or directory.
Whether the county board of equalization's actions taken after the statutory deadline are rendered illegal by the delay.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When judicial or quasi-judicial powers are vested by law in a public officer, or powers calling for the exercise of discretion, it needs no citation of authority to show that they may not be delegated”

“The time provisions relative to the assessment and collection of taxes, found in the various sections of the Political Code, are designed for the convenience of the officers”

Synopsis

Taxation—Equalization—Void Delegation or Power by State Board —Time LiMrr—Directory Statute.—The state board of equalization cannot delegate to its clerk authority to issue orders prolonging the time of the session of the county board of equalization; but nevertheless equalization made by the county board after the expiration óf the time limited by section 3762 of the Political Code, and within the limit to which it might have been extended by the state board, is not void, and the limit of time fixed by that section must be regarded as directory, under the general rule of judicial interpretation, and also under the terms of section 3885 of the Political Code, which has the effect to transform that general rule into a matter of positive law.

Henshaw, J. These are separate appeals by different defendants from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial. They may be considered and disposed of together.

The following facts present, in brief, the matter of plaintiff’s complaint: He is a taxpayer of the county of [352]Alameda. Within the time required by law the assessor of the county made his assessment, completed his assessment-book, and duly delivered the latter to the board of supervisors. Upon the first Monday of July, 1895, the board of supervisors met as a board of equalization to examine and equalize the assessment so made, “and did then and thenceforth, until and including the fifteenth day of July, continue from day to day” to equalize the assessment. On the tenth and twelfth days of July two pretended orders of the state board of equalization were entered upon the minutes of the state board and certified to the county auditor, which orders purported to extend the time for the sitting of the county board of equalization until the twenty-sixth' day of July. The state board of equalization never in fact passed or adopted either of these orders, and they were without authority and void. The board of supervisors continued to sit as a board of equalization daily, and upon July 25th, by its order, raised the assessed valuations by the assessor theretofore placed upon certain pieces, and decreased the assessed valuations by the assessor theretofore placed upon other pieces of property, with the result of decreasing the aggregate value fixed by the assessor in the sum of over one million and a half of dollars. A decree is sought declaring the order of the county board of July 25th by which this reduction was effected to be null and void; and to compel recognition, upon the part of the officers, of the assessment made by the assessor.

Many grounds, of demurrer were interposed to this complaint; but they will be passed by in order that we may come to the paramount question in the case: Was the board of supervisors of Alameda, county sitting as the county board of equalization upon July 25th ?

Section 3672 of the Political Code provides that “ the board of supervisors of each county must meet upon the first Monday of July in each year to examine the assessment-book, and equalize the assessment of property in the county. It must continue in session for [353]

Buswell v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief