San Diego County v. Riverside County

California Supreme Court Nov 19, 1898 No. L. A. No. 391Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the apportionment of tax claims between counties when the legislature had delegated that specific authority to a board of commissioners, and that such administrative omissions cannot be corrected by the courts.

Issues

Whether a second presentation of a claim to a board of supervisors is required when the entire claim has been rejected.
Whether the courts have jurisdiction to adjust and apportion tax claims between counties when the legislature has established a board of commissioners for that purpose.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where the whole claim is rejected, as in the case here, the statute does not require a second presentation”

“In the present instance the legislature provided a board of commissioners to determine how these matters should be adjusted, and we think in such case the courts cannot be called upon to perform its duties”

Synopsis

Counties—Presentation of Claims.—Statutes of 1893, page 346, sections 43, 44, requiring a second presentation of claims allowed in part to the board of supervisors before bringing suit for the balance, do not apply to claims wholly rejected.

Counties—Change of Boundaries and New Counties—Apportionment.—Act of March 11, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 158), erected a new county out of existing ones, and provided that commissioners should apportion the property and indebtedness of the old county and the new one. At that time certain railroad taxes were delinquent for each of eight years, and the railroad company paid the first six years’ taxes, but left the taxes for 1886-87 unpaid. Under the reassessment act of March 23, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 290), the state board of equalization reassessed the latter taxes, and apportioned the valuation and taxes between the two counties according to the mileage in each. After the passage of the reassessment act, but before the reassessment, the commissioners apportioned the property of the old county, including taxes due, and fixed a ratio for the division of said taxes, excepting the taxes for 1886-87, and adjusted the indebtedness between the counties. The latter taxes were afterward paid into the treasuries of the old and new counties in the ratio established by the state board of equalization. “ Held, that, the commissioners having made no adjustment of the respective rights of the counties in them, an action by the old county to recover the amount of said taxes paid to the new county would not lie.

CHIPMAN, C. Action to recover certain taxes paid by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company upon reassessment by the state board of equalization for the years 1886 and 1887, under the provisions of the act of March 23, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 290), paid by that company to the state treasurer, and by him to defendant county. Defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled; and, defendant declining to answer, plaintiff had judgment for $9,104.65, from which defendant appeals. The demurrer challenges the jurisdiction of the court as to both the person of defendant and the subject matter of the action, and the sufficiency of the facts alleged.

1. It is contended that the complaint is insufficient in showing that the claims sued upon were presented but once to the board of supervisors; citing sections 43 and 44 of the county government act (Stats. 1893, p. 346); Arbios v. San Bernardino Co., 110 Cal. 553, 42 Pac. 1080. In the case cited this court construed these sections to require a second presentation of a claim before suit where the board has allowed a portion of the claim presented and rejected the remainder; and the reason stated was that the board should have an opportunity to again consider the claim, if the amount allowed was not satisfactory to the claimant, so as to avoid, if the board should change its mind, the cost of litigation which might be imposed by section 44. Where the whole claim is rejected, as in the case here, the statute does not require a second presentation:

2. Riverside county was carved out of San Diego county and San Bernardino county by act of March 11, 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 158). The railroad company at that time was a tax delinquent for the years 1880 to 1887, inclusive. It appears from the allegations of the complaint that the company paid the tax to these counties for the years 1880 to 1885 sometime during the year 1893; but for the years 1886 and 1887 the tax was levied upon the reassessment made under the act of [172]March 23, 1893, and was not paid until 1894. The action relates to the tax for these last two years. The act of March 11, 1893, creating Riverside county, contains a section, apportioning the public property and debts of the counties concerned, not unlike the one found in the act of March 11, 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 123), creating Orange county. Section 9 of the act of March 11,1893, supra, provides for the appointment of commissioners, and among their duties were the following: “Said board of commissioners shall, immediately after its organization, ascertain the indebtedness of San Diego county existing at the time this act takes effect, and also the total value of all property .at that time belonging to said county of San Diego. They shall ascertain the assessed value of all property in San Diego county, as it stood before this act takes effect, according to the assessment made for San Diego county in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two; also the assessed value, under the same assessment, of all property in the territory hereby set apart from San Diego county and embraced in the county of Riverside. They shall find the difference between the amount of the indebtedness of San Diego county and the value of the property belonging to San Diego county at the time this act takes effect, and, if such indebtedness exceeds the value of such property belonging to San Diego county, the county of Riverside shall pay San Diego county a due proportion thereof, to be determined as follows. ’ ’ Directions are given how to find this “due proportion,” and the commissioners are directed to report the amount constituting this proportion to the boards of supervisors of the respective counties; “also, the value of any property belonging to San Diego county at the time this act tabes effect which is situated in the county of Riverside. The sum of said ascertained value of said last-mentioned property, added to the ascertained proportion of said excess which the county of Riverside is to pay to San Diego county, shall be an indebtedness from the county of Riverside to the county of San Diego. Said property, situated as aforesaid in the county of Riverside, shall, upon settlement therefor as provided in this act, become the property of the county of Riverside, and San Diego county shall pay the entire indebtedness. of San Diego county.” Provision is further made for adjusting accounts after the excess in the value of the property oyer the indebtedness in either county is ascertained, and then fol

San Diego County v. Riverside County

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief