Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-15
certain streets, and the advance was by
fixed percentage above the Assessors

q llAtu percentage dpONo thC <hooOSoOi
valuation.
Eighth. Some of the plaintiffs paid
the amount of the assessment as it stood
prior to the raise and others failed to
pay, while some of those failing ten.
dered the amount of the original assess
ment, demanding at the same time re-
ceipt. To these latter the defendant
, offered receipt ION account" which
they declined.
Ninth. Some of those to whom these
notices were sent received the same.
Others did not receive the notice. Others
again received notice which was mis-
leading, while as to still others there is
no evidence whether the notice was re-
ceived or not. In order that the find
ings may be clear and full upon these
questions l shall rely upon counsel to
furnish the data.
Excessive Valuations.
On the question of excessive valua-
tions the courts reasoning in brief is as
follows:
The claim that the property was too
highly valued is fully answered. The
fact that the Council was actuated by a
desire to get more revenue would not OF
itself vitiate the act of that body. Still,
with other facts, this becomes
significant. Had there been no
deficit confronting the Council there
would have been no such raise made.
The question OF the absolute values of
the property is not admissible in this
case, as the question is one of compara-
tive values.
How it Was Done.
After the Council had discovered
the deficit of revenue, as compared
to their estimates, the Board of
Equalization decide to supply this
deficiency by raising the assessed
values of property wherever, in their
opinion, the Assessor has fixed the value
too low. They select for this purpose
i the property situated on certain business
streets and determine to raise it between
certain points, and calculate the percent
age of raise which they think it will
bear, and upon computation, finding
that this will provide sufficient revenue
to meet their estimates, cease this whole
sale method, and order ten days notice
to be forwarded to the owners of property
affected. At this time the session of the
board is near it's close. There is no or
der as to what the notice shall contain,
how it shall be served, or the requisite
proof of service. If this board had been
empowered to regulate the manner and
mode of service the law would still hold
this discretion subject to the rule that
it should be reasonable notice. That
is notice that would give the per-
son notified a reasonable opportu-
nifty to be heard. But the char
ter, which expressly provides that this
notice shall be given, says, "such notice
to be regulated in all respects by ordi-
nance" And even ii it can be main
tanned that this charter provision did
not repeal the conflicting section of Or
dinance No. 81, section IS, which pro-
vides that "The board shall have power
upon such notice as it may, by rule, pre-
scribe,' to increase OF decrease assess
ments, ETC., the notice in question would
not be legalized, for the reason that
there is no evidence ofany rule prescrib-
ing the kind of notice to be given in such
cases. But we may go farther, and say
authority to regulate such an important
iurisdictional matter "by ordinance, -
cannot by ordinance or otherwise dele
gate such authority to the Board of
Equalization. Hence this notice, which
is in itself defective in substance; not
personally served; the proof of service
through the mails defective and uncer-
tain, inasmuch as it falls short of indi-
eating to whom it was forwarded at their
particular address, and to whom at their
general place of residence, is utterly
worthless as the basis of any presump-
ton that it was ever received.
Nothing is truer than that for pur-
poses of personal jurisdiction to be ac-
quired by service of notice or summons
a general appearance valves all defects
both of form and substance. Indeed,
after such appearance the original pro-
cess becomes utterly immaterial. And
yet, could it be said that defendant
who had never been served with sum-
mons in a particular case, submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court
for the purposes of that action by ap-
pearing in the court room as a mere
spectator, when the case was called for
trial? This question answers itself; so
if any OF these parties were summoned
to appear at one hour of the day, and ap-
pearing there at that hour they discov-
cred that their cases had been previously
disposed of, there was no appearance
but these notices, and all the previous
and subsequent proceedings leading up
to or flowing therefrom are crushed under
an overwhelming objection. This notice
cannot under the charter be regulated
out Of substantial existence even by or
dinance. The charter provision is that
before any such assessment shall be in
creased due notice shall be given to the
owner, who shall have opportunity to
be heard before the board, under oath
This means something more than a mere
perfunctory notice given in the manner
and form prescribed by the clerk of the
board, and points with distinctness un-
mistakable to the purpose for which it
is given. 1t is to afford the property
owner an opportunity, not only to make
corporeal appearance onthe day and
at the place designated, bnt under such
attendant circumstances that when
there, an officer will be in attendance to
administer oaths, and some semblance
of order in procedure shall be preserved
whereby the increase may be intelli-
gently challenged. For the purposes of
such an inquiry the time. and place of
appointed meeting and the number who
were notified to appear were so grossly
disproportionate that it amounted to q
fraud on those summoned to appear.
Here follows the courts summing up
OF the fact that the members of the
Council were themselves uncertain as to
whether there was a quorum present or