The herald., 1893-02-21
EIGHT EIGHT COURT COURT OPINIONS OF |N|OHSS,
One of Importance Involving
Bank Assessments.
Orange County Wins Suit Against
Los Angeles County.
The Case of tho Farmers and Nor
chants Bankz-smith VS.. the
Superior Court-Other
Opinions.

| yesterday at the ONCE OF the deputy
clerk of the supreme court in this city.
One of the cases passed upon was of i'm
portance, being that of the Farmers and
Merchants bank of Los Angeles, re-
spondent, VS.. the board of equalization
OF this city.
The appeal in this case is from judg-
ment of the superior court annulling an
order made by the city council as a
board OF equalization, rendered in pro-
ceeding under writ OF review issued
upon petition and affidavit of John Mil
ner, cashier of the bank. The petition
shows that the petitioner duly made and
returned to the city assessor list of all
the personal property in it's possession or
under its control on the first Monday in
March, 1891; that the council, sitting
and acting as board Of equalization on
August s. 1891, ordered notice to be
given the petitioner to show cause Au-
gust IL, 1891, why its assessment
of solvent credits should not be
increased from $2l IA to $275, 1000. That
petitioner appeared and answered such
interrogations as we're propounded, but
no other evidence was taken at such
hearing. 1t is claimed that this testl-
mony does not show or tend to show
that petitioner had any solvent credits
or any which had escaped assessment.
The board, however, made an order
directing the assessor to assess the bank
for solvent credits in the sum of $780,
TIA; and the assessor pursuant thereto
added the sum of $26S. 900 upon the as
sessment roll.
Appellants contend that the proceed
ing was not to equalize the values of
property listed and assessed, but was an
attempt to add the property to the list
which it is claimed the board could not
do, as it is not vested with assessorial
power.
The court, however, holds that the
board was authorized to make the order
by section 1851 of the political code
which the city charter expressly makes
applicable. The claim that this section
of the code ia unconstitutional because
the state constitution expressly defines
the powers and duties of both state and
county boards of equalization and the
power to cause property to be added to
the assessment roll is not there given,
is held to be without merit as the con-
stitution requires ali property not ex-
empt from execution to be taxed.
The second contention that the board
had no power to act in the premises be-
cause the notice WAS insufficient, in that
it gave no information that it WAS pro-
posed to add other property to the as
sessment is also held to bs without
merit as the defects in the notice were
waived by the appearance OF the COM
missioner.
The next contention is that the order is
void because there was no evidence be-
| fore the board that any property had
escaped assessment, but it is held that
as the order recites that testimony was
taken, and in effect that the conclusion
was reached from the evidence that the
bank had returned false list of 1its
property and escaped assessment for
solvent credits to the amount of $26S, 900 !;
this must be held conclusive. The judg-
ment of the lower court is sustained and
| the demurrer sustained.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEFT.
In the case OF the county of Los An
geles, appellant, Va. the county of
Orange. respondent, the judgment OF
the lower court was affirmed, as was an
nouuced in the telegraph columns of the
HERALD some days ago. This was an
action to recover S11, 375.42 which had
been expended by the plaintiff in the
construction of bridge, and certain
transfers to different road and school
district funds within the defendants
boundaries on behalf of Orange county
after March IL, 1889, the date of its sep
aration. A demurrer to the complaint
was sustained, and from this Judgment
the plaintiff appealed. The court holds
that the items for which the action is
brought were expenditures between the
date of the creation and organization OF
the new county, but during all of the
time the territory within which it was
made was portion of Los Angeles coun-
ty, and it must be assumed that tn Y
were made in the wise exercise OF its
control over that territory. The fact
that the Legislature made no provision
for the reimbursement of moneys ex-
pended by Los Angeles county for mu-
nicipal purposes within this territory is
indicative that it was not its intention
that it should be reimbursed therefor
The judgment is affirmed.
TILE ORDER ANNULLED.
In the case of Smith VS.. the Superior
Court of Los Angeles county. the wri
was ordered dissolved and the proceed
ings dismissed. This was petition TO-
writ of certiorari, it being claimed tina
the order OF the court appointing Silver
receiver of the Los Angeles and Pacifi
railroad company in an action in which
the California bank was plaintiff was il
excess Of the jurisdiction OF the court
hence an order was asked annullini
the same.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
In the case of Thomas f. Joyce, ap
pellant, vs.. A. g. Shafer and f. D. Ian
terman. respondents, a decision wa
given affirming the Judgment of tn