The herald., 1893-01-21
THE COURT OF THE LAST GUESS,
An Unfavorable Decision for
the Savings Banks.
An Appeal Case in Which the City
Comes Out Ahead.
The Points of the Decision which Cover
Grounds of Great importance.
Other Judgments
Received.

decisions in the celebrated cases OF
three savings banks of Los Angeles
against City Assessor J.W. Hinton, sus-
tanning the judgment OF the superior
court in all three cases, which was in
favor of the city assessor.
The appeal was from judgment rem
dered III favor of the defendant upon his
demurrer to the complaints.
The opinion in the case of the Secu-
rity Savings Bank and Trust company,
appellant, VS.. ]. w. Hinton. city asses-
sor of the city OF Los Angeles, No.
14,S77, is the leading opinion in the
cases and is quite long, discussing the
important matterp involved exhaust
lively. The points of the document are
as follows:
The complaint alleges. says the su-
preme court, that plaintiff is a corpora
tion, organized for the profit OF Its
shareholders, with capital stock OF
5000 O00 the purposes of the corpora
tion being to receive deposits and pay
interest upon them, preserve and safely
invest the funds of its members
and depoeitors in loans on real
and personal property, sell. transfer
and assign it's loans to individuals and
corporations without recourse upon the
corporation, and receive funds from pri-
vate parties and corporations for the
purpose of losning the same upon ade-
quste security.
1t was alleged that in June. 1891, the
plaintiff made out and delivered to the
city assessor statement of its property
as it existed on the first Monday OF
March preceding, which showed that
the plaintiff had money and personal
property amounting to $3233; that
there were owing to it solvent credits,
unsecured, $53 002 so; due from banks
aud bankers, $6424 %. and that there
was due from the bank to depositors,
bona fide residents OF the state, unse
cured debts for deposits of money with
the plaintiff, $407 1926 co. Mortgages to
very large amount were returned
separately.
Plaintiff offered to pay the taxes upon
$3233. it 8 money and personal property,
but declined 10 pay upon $64 426 70, be-
ing solvent credits uneecured, and
moneys due from banks and bankers,
claiming that it was entitled to deduct
from its credits the unsecured debts to
it's depositors, which amounted to q
much larger sum.
assessor Hinton demanded payment
OF taxes upon the whole sum of its per-
sonal property and unsecured credits,
being $67 $50 73, amounting to $Su5 IL,
which plaintiff refused to pay and tend
cred $38 so, the amount assessed upon
the personal property. Wbereupon the
assessor seized the amount of the whole
tax, $S05. IL in money, appellant ow ming
nm raol TO
to recover of the defendant that sum,
less the taxes admitted to be due on the
personal property, and judgment went
for the defendant, the city assessor.
1.-The appellant" says the court, "pre-
sented two principal grounds upon
y which 1t contends that the action OF the
defendant was illegal, and which, if sus
tanned, must require reversal OF the
Judgment.
ii. That the city of Los Angeles hal
no power to levy taxes.
''2. That if it be conceded that tbs
city has such power the assessor had nc
authority to deny the deduction from ite
solvent credits of moneys due or owing
to depositore."
The frat of these propositions, the
court says, is based upon the fact that
the charter of the city is "freeholder't
charter" that it was approved by the
legislature by resolution, and not by
bill, and therefore, it is argued, is not 8
law, and that the existence of law en-
acted by the legislature is essential to
the exercise of the power to levy, assess
and collect taxes.
In discussing the point thus raised
the court says that in none OF the sew
eral cases appealed to it touching the
charter of the city OF Los Angeles has
it been held that the charter was no
properly adopted, nor that it was in
valid, though some of it's provisions
have been held to be imperative, be
cause inconsistent with certain legisla
tive acts which were declared to bs
general laws"
In Brooks vs. Fiecher, 70 CAL, 173, j
was said: ut is enough to say that thu
whole charter cannot be held to be in
valid because of the fact that a few of itl
provisions may conflict with genera
ptatutes now in folce," and this Ian
guage was repeated in People VS.. Toal
If no such general law has been enacted
as counsel contended, there can be nj
conflict between the charter and suct
law and it ls only as to such conflicts
that the validity of the charter has beer
heretofore questioned.
Counse's argument makes such gen
eral lnw the essential basis of the powe
of the city to impose taxes for municipa
purposes, basing the argument On sec
ton 1t, article II of the constitution
which reads as follows:
''Tbe legislature shall have no powe
to impose taxes upon counties, citiee
towns or other public or municipal cor
porations, or upon the inhabitants OF
property thereof TOR county, city, town
or other municipal purposes, but may
by general laws, vest in the corporal,
authorities thereof the power to asHes
and collect taxes for euch purposes
The Authority given by the constitu
tion tu frame and adopt "a charter tc
its own government, holds the court
which shall become the organic Law
thereof, is comprehensive enough t.
authorize a provision such as that con
tained in the cha ter of the city of Lo
Angeles, providing for taxation for mo
nicipal pui :, oees. In still further die
cussinG the question, the court said:
"It is undoubtedly true that the leg
islative branch of the government ha
the exclusive power of taxation, excep
&C far as that power is restrained by th
constitution, or delegated by the legis
latur. or the constitution to local mu
inequalities. But by section IL of articl
IL, above quoted, the Legislature is pro
A Leader.
Since the first introduction, Electric Bitter