Islais Co. v. Matheson

SHENK, J. By this proceeding in mandamus the petitioner seeks to compel the respondent to accept a sum of money in full payment of a call for an instalment of an assessment levied by the Islais Creek Reclamation District for reclamation purposes.

On June 20, 1928, an assessment in the sum of $1,620,150 for reclamation purposes was levied upon all the lands in the Islais Creek Reclamation District, $14,433.57 of which was levied against tract No. 282, owned by the petitioner. A bond issue was duly voted for by the electors on September 4, 1928, in the principal sum stated, and sold. On September 18,1933, the respondent duly made a call of an instalment of said assessment to be paid by the assessed land owners in the district to meet bond payments of principal and interest to become due on January 1, 1934. The amount of the instalment of the assessment and accrued interest called against said tract No. 282 was the sum of $1,367.38. The petitioner did not respond to the call and the instalment became delinquent on October 31, 1933. The notice of sale for delinquency eon[373]tained the following item: “Tract No. 282, The Islais Co., Ltd., Installment — $1,367.38; Interest — $9.84; Penalty — $275.44; Total—$1,652.66. ’ ’ The tract was sold to the district as the highest bidder therefor pursuant to sale conducted on December 7, 1933, for nonpayment of the instalment, interest and penalty. The petitioner tendered to the respondent the amount of the call and interest, with the twenty per cent penalty computed on the amount due at the date of delinquency, which he also tendered, which was less by approximately two dollars than the amount demanded by the respondent.

The applicability of the amendment in 1927 of section 3480 of the Political Code, in prescribing the duties of the respondent in the collection of penalties and interest on account of delinquent assessment calls, is determined in Islais Creek Co., Ltd., v. Matheson, S. F. No. 15216 (3 Cal. (2d) 657 [45 Pac. (2d) 326].) It was there held that the 1927 amendments governed the proceeding and that the amendments of 1931 and 1933 were inapplicable.

The petitioner contends that the sale to the district is void by reason of the fact that the respondent has not complied with the law in computing the amount of the penalty, and that the sale was for an excessive amount.

By the demurrer to the petition the facts are admitted to be: That the respondent has calculated the penalty of twenty per cent on the amount of the instalment called, plus the sum of $9.84, which it is alleged is the amount of interest at seven per cent to the date of sale, or rather to the last day of the 60-day period within which the sale could lawfully be conducted. The petitioner contends that the penalty should have been computed only on the amount of the call on the date of delinquency, which it is assumed includes the interest accrued to that date. The question for determination is as to the correctness of the respondent’s computations pursuant to the applicable statutory law.