Lahman v. Hatch
Before: Pringle
Synopsis
Irrigation District—Assessment of Improvements—Description.—An assessment of improvements on the lands embraced within an irrigation district need not describe the improvements, but they are sufficiently described in the desorption of the land; and all that is necessary is that the valuation of the improvements shall be placed under the appropriate head, in correct figures, with proper dollar and cent marks.
In.—Custody of Assessment Book—Immaterial Correction of Assessment.—The action of the assessor in taking away the assessment book while in the custody of the board of equalization, from 5 o’clock Saturday afternoon until Monday morning, and assuming to amend the assessment so as to add an unnecessary description of improvements, is immaterial, and cannot affect the substantial rights of the persons assessed, or vitiate the assessment.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Board of Equalization—Action to Restrain Tax Sale—Defective Complaint.—It is immaterial whether the board of equalization of an irrigation district did or did not have jurisdiction to raise or lower assessments, for the purpose of sustaining an action to restrain a sale of lands embraced within the district, for taxes levied thereupon, if the complaint does not show that the assessments of the plaintiffs’ lands were altered, or that the general assessed value of lands in the dis- - trict was lowered, to the injury of plaintiffs, and does not show error in the original assessment, which remained binding, upon the supposition that the action of the board was void for want of jurisdiction.
Id.—Notice of Levy of Assessment—Validity of Irrigation Act.—As the irrigation act provides for notice to the taxpayer of the meeting of the board of equalization, the duration of which is fixed by law, and of all the preliminary steps which he can examine and make objection to, it is no objection to the validity of the act that it does not provide for notice to be given of the levy of the assessment, which is the final act, and the outcome of the rest, which he might know with small diligence, and in reference to which he can have nothing to say.
PRINGLE, C. Appeal from judgment entered after demurrer to complaint sustained. Action brought to restrain the respondent, as tax collector of the Escondido Irrigation District, from selling lands of the appellants for taxes imposed by the directors of the district under the act entitled, “An act to provide for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition or construction thereby of works for the irrigation of lands embraced within such districts, and also to provide for the distribution of water for irrigation purposes.” Approved March 31, 1897 (page 254).
The grounds of'demurrer to the complaint are: 1. That complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2. That the action is barred by the limitation established by the act in question. In answer to the point that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the appellants claim that the taxes, the collection of which they seek to restrain, are illegal for two reasons—for conduct of the assessor, and for conduct of the hoard of equalization.
1. For conduct of the assessor: Section 37 provides that on or before the first Monday in August of each year the assessor must complete his assessment-hook and deliver it to the secre[3]tary of the board, who must immediately give notice thereof and of the time the board of directors, acting as a board of equalization, will meet to equalize assessments.....The time fixed for the meeting shall not be less than twenty nor more than thirty days from the first publication of the notice; “and in the mean time the assessment-boolc must remain in the office of the secretary for the inspection of all persons interested.” The complaint charges that the assessor prepared his assessment-book, and “on the fourth day of August, 1897, said assessor delivered said assessment-book to the secretary of the said irrigation district; that said assessor did not, prior to said fourth day of August, 1897, list any improvements on said book, or in the columns of said book headed improvements on land in the Rancho Rincon del Diablo (that being the land in said district other than city or town lots) as being or situated on any of the land assessed. That there was at said time improvements on said lands in said district, and on the lands listed on said book, and on the lands of these plaintiffs; that the value of all said improvements exceeded the sum of one hundred thousand dollars; that on or about the eleventh day of September, 1897, at about the hour of 5 o’clock P. M., said assessor, without having first been authorized so to do by any action of the board of directors of said district, sitting as a board of equalization, or as said board of directors, took and removed said assessment-book from the custody of the secretary of said board and of said district, and retained the same until Monday morning of September 13, 1897, when said book was returned to the custody of said secretary; that said book, when so returned, had entered and listed thereon, and in the columns headed, “Improvements on the land in the Rancho Rincon del Diablo,” and in the column headed, “Improvements on city or town lots,” the improvements that were situated and located on said lands and on said city and town lots; that prior to said eleventh day of September, and at the time said book was taken from the custody of said secretary, as aforesaid, there was nothing written on said assessment-book or in said columns to represent improvements, except figures, which corresponded in quantity and number to the figures entered on said book in the columns headed ‘Value of improvements on lands in the Rancho del Diablo’ (which column was
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)