The record-union., 1891-01-25

Filled January 10, 1911
Appeal from Superior Court. II. Rear
don, Judge.
For appellant, Graves, Turner & Graves.
For respondent, William Shipsey.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo,1
Respondent,
PETIT, COUNTY TREAS
URER, ETC, Appellant.
This was an action to recover delinquent
taxes. The property taxed was sum of
Money deposited with the defendant in his
official capacity under an order of the Superior
Court in a pending case. During the fiscal
year 1SS7-S, the defendant reported the de-
assess it to him, but probably acting under a
mistaken view of the law assessed it to the
plaintiffs in the suit. The tax was not paid.
In the following year the property was as
sessed to the defendant. But upon the theory
that it had escaped assessment the preced-
ing year, the amount of the assessment was
doubled. The trial court gave judgment for
the plaintiff and the defendant appeals. The
points made relate to the validity of the as
sessment.
1. In doubling the assessment the Assessor
acted under n provision of the Political Code
which is as follows:
Section 3649. "Any property discovered
by the Assessor to have escaped assessment
for the last preceding year, if such property is
in the ownership or under the control of the
same person VINO owned or controlled it for
such preceding. year, may be assessed at
double Its value"
The validity of this provision was affirmed
in Biddle VS.. Cakes go Cal. go, in which
case the court said that the Legislature had
power to impose penalty for neglect to have
an assessment made. In the before US
there was no such neglect, because the defend
ant reported the property to the Assessor But
we do not understand the decision as confin-
ing the operation or validity of the provision
to cases where there has been neglect on the
part of the person to whom the assessment Is
made. The terms of the provision indicate no
such limitation. The language is general and
applies to all cases where property has es-
capped assessment in the preceding year, what
ever may have been the cause of such escape
Nor do we think that upon this construction
the provision is invalid. Its evident, purpose
is to carry out the general intention pervading
the revenue system, that all private property
shall bear its share of the burden of taxation.
This is certainly a legitimate purpose, and the
means employed to carry it out are not in our
opinion. in violation Of any constitutional
provision. The section does not provide that
the property shall not be assessed in proper
ton to its value. 1t provides in effect that in
certain cases assessments for two different
years may be made in one, and therefore goes
in effect merely to the time at which an asess-
ment may be made. We see no constitutional
objection to this. 1t is true that in exceptional
cases it might happen that the property would
increase in value since the preceding assess
assessment would not be an accurate way of
arriving at the value for the preceding year.
But in the great majority of cases doubling
the assessment would be a fair enough way of
And If in exceptional cases the method would
result in an generalization, and it be assumed
flor the purposes of the opinion) that in such
cases the Generalization would render the
assessment void, 1t would have to be shown
that the case was of such exceptional char
acter. In this case no such question can arise,
because the property assessed was money; and
for all practical purposes was of the same
value from year to year. The provision there
fore is valid and covers the case before u.s.
1t is TO be observed that the condition of the
double assessment Is not that the property
should have escaped tdrdtion. 1t is not enough
therefore to show that the tax was not paid
The property must have escaped assessment
But in our opinion the word assessment in
this connection means a Uaiid assessment.
thing which has the semblanee of an assess
ment but which is void and of no effect. is for
all practical purposes no assessment, and fur
nishes no reason why proper assessment
should not be made. The question therefore
must turn upon whether the assessment for
the year 1878 was valid or invalid.
Incur opinion 1t was invalid. The method of