County of San Diego v. County of Riverside
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
Counties—División—Pbioe Railroad Taxes — Improper Reassessment—Recovert op Loss.—Upon the division of a county, with an agreed basis of apportionment of assets, which did not include prior unpaid railroad taxes, the validity of which was disputed, and which had not then been reassessed, but which were subsequently improperly reassessed for the previous years to each of the counties, upon the basis of their respective railroad mileage, and paid upon that basis, the original county may recover from the new county the difference between the amount of taxes received by the complainant, and the amount which it would have had, if the taxes had been wholly reassessed to it, and divided between them upon the agreed basis of apportionment, with interest upon such difference.
Id.—Presentation of Claim.—The claim for reimbursement having been presented by the original county to the new county for allowance, and wholly rejected, it need not be again presented before bringing an action thereupon.
Id.—Pleading—Invalidity of Original Assessments—General Demurrer.—Where the complaint showed that the railroad taxes were long delinquent, owing to a question as to their validity, and that reassessments made by the state board of equalization were accepted and acted upon by the railroad company by payment of the taxes, it cannot be objected upon general demurrer that the invalidity of the original assessments was not directly alleged.
Id.—Duty of State Board of Equalization—Reassessment and Apportionment.—It is the duty of the state board of equalization, in making a reassessment of railroad taxes, to take the place of an invalid assessment of a previous year, to make their apportionment to the counties' as they existed at the time of the invalid assessment, and not at the time of the reassessment.
Id.—Lien fob Taxes not Created by Assessment.—The lien for the taxes justly leviable upon the property of a railroad company attaches on the first Monday of March in each year, and is not created by the assessment, which is merely one of the steps for the enforcement of the lien; and whenever a valid assessment or reassessment is made for that year, the taxes become payable to the county in which the roadbed was included when the lien attached for the taxes of that year.
Id.—Ambiguity of Complaint—Mistake in Figures.—The ambiguity of the complaint caused by a mistake in figures, causing a discrepancy of allegation as to the number of miles taxed in the new county, which may be corrected by other figures given in the complaint, cannot be reached upon general demurrer.
Id.—Failure of Commissioners to Divide Unpaid Taxes—Error in Favor of Appellant.—The objection that the commissioners failed to divide the unpaid railroad taxes for previous years, the validity of which was disputed, and which had not then been reassessed, cannot preclude a recovery by the original county of its alleged proper proportion of the taxes received by the new county, when subsequently reassessed and paid. If such failure made a subsequent division impossible the original county would be entitled to recover and keep all the taxes for those years; and the new county, upon appeal, from a judgment for a portion of the taxes improperly received by it, cannot complain of error in its favor.
BEATTY, C. J. This action was commenced in the county of Los Angeles to recover certain moneys claimed to have been received by the defendant to the use of plaintiff. Defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds of absence of jurisdiction and want of facts. The superior court overruled the demurrer, and, defendant declining to answer, entered judgment for the plaintiff, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
If the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action, there appears to be-no ground upon which the jurisdiction of the court can he successfully assailed.
It appears from the complaint, among other things, that the county of Riverside was created by an act of the legislature, approved March 13, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 158), out of territory formerly belonging, part to the county of San Diego and part to the county of San Bernardino, and that commissioners were appointed in pursuance of the provisions of said act to settle and adjust the mutual claims and obligations of the counties of Riverside and San Diego, with respect to the property and existing indebtedness of the latter county; that said commissioners duly organized and afterward made their award, by which it was determined, among other things, that Riverside county should pay to San Diego county the sum of $2,782.86, and that the net assets of San Diego county, as the same stood at the date of the act creating Riverside county, should be divided between the two counties as follows: 61,087 parts out of 71,087 parts to San Diego county and the remaining 10,000 parts-to Riverside county. This ratio of division was subsequently ratified and accepted by the respective boards of supervisors off the two counties, and partly carried out.
Before the creation of Riverside county there were 158.85 miles of railway belonging to the Southern Pacific Company within the county of San Diego upon which the taxes were [498]delinquent for the years 1880 to 1887, inclusive, no part of which taxes were paid until after reassessment in pursuance of the act of March 23, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 290). The taxes of 1880 to 1885, inclusive, were paid by the railroad company in 1893, and were considered and included in the award of the commissioners, and divided by the supervisors of the respective counties according to the ratio above stated. But the taxes for the years 1886 and 1887 were not then paid and were not considered or in any manner adjusted by said board of commissioners, or by said boards of supervisors. In August, 1894, and subsequent to the award of said commissioners, the taxes of 1886 and 1887 still remaining unpaid, the state board of equalization, in pursuance of said act of March 23, 1893, made reassessments of said 158.85 miles of railway for the years 1886 and 1887, but instead of apportioning and certifying the whole o! said assessments to the county of San Diego, as they should have done, they apportioned and certified the assessments upon 71.06 miles to the county of Riverside, that being the number of miles within the territory transferred from the former to' the latter county by the act of March 11, 1893. These reassessments were thereafter entered upon the tax rolls of the respective counties, according to the erroneous apportionment of the state board of equalization, and the taxes were paid by the state treasurer (by whom they were collected from the railroad company) to the treasurers of the respective counties, according to the same erroneous apportionment, the result being that, out of the whole amount paid, the county of Riverside received $7,969.65 more, and San Diego that amount less, than they would have received if-the whole amount of said delinquent taxes' had been divided according to the ratio established by the commissioners and accepted by the respective boards of supervisors as the basis of division of the net assets of San Diego county.
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)