The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-25
TAXPAYERS AND
DELINQUENT TAXES
Rebates Will Be Paid With
cut Regard to Former
r. Dues.
Judge SeaweIl Says the Consoli-
: dation Act Does Not
Govern.
Corbett and Others to Draw Down
$40 o5 Though They Owe 500 to
the City Treasury.

More than 10000 taxpayers are directly
interested in and affected by a decision
rendered by Judge Seawell OF the Supe-
rior Court yesterday morning in which he
held that the County Treasurer is not
called on to deduct from taxpayers delin-
quent taxes for past years before repaying
to them money which they demand for
rebate on the taxes for the current year.
The question arose in the suit of Corbett
and others against the Treasurer when
they demanded a writ to compel him to
pay them $40 05 rebate said to be due to
, certain taxpayer who had assigned his
claim to Mr.. CorDett and his associates.
Deputy City and County Attorney Bro
beck, representing the Supervisors and
the City generally, and Attorney WilIett,
representing the Treasurer, conceded that
the City is owing $40 05 to the taxpayer
for whose claim Mr.. Corbett has an as
signment.
They draw attention to the fact, how
ever, that the said taxpayer is indebted to
the City for $50 on account of unpaid and
delinGuent taxes levied in former years
According to their view of the case it was
unreasonable to ask the City Treasurer TO
nav $40 05, when he is actually indebted
more han twice that amount to the City
Mr.. Brobeck drew the attention of the
court to section 80 of the consolidation
act. which contains the following lam
guage:
Section 82.-No payment can be made from
the treasury or out of the public funds of said
city and county unless the same be specifically
authorized by this act, nor unless the demand
which is paid or duly audited, as in this act
proYided and that must appear on the face OF
it. No demand upon the treasury shall be al
lowed by the Auditor In favor of any person
or officer iii any manner indebted thereto,
without first deducting the amounted such in
de btedness.
In support of his position in this case
Mr.. Brobeek said: ION the question OF
the expediency of giving iull operation
and effect 10 that portion OF the consolida-
ton act which requires the Indebtedness
of all claimants to be discharged before
their claims can be audited. the Supreme
Court of this State in Gas Company VS..
Brickwedel. 81 Cal. 646, held that: "A
taxpayer should not be allowed to have
a claim against municipal corporation
satisfied when he owes to such corporation
the money which goes to furnish the means
of dischargiDg his claim.
"Our contention being that the Treas
urer should not be required to pay out OF
any public funds except upon demand
duly audited by the Auditor, we are Lead
tn further contend that no such demand
should be audited until the taxpayers in
debtedness for delinquent taxes has been
deducted from the face of his demand for
rebate taxes.
ATTORNEY WilIett said that the Political
Code holds that taxes when levied have
the effect of judgment and OF an execu-
ton. OF course, that judgment is against
all the property OF the taxpayer, and this,
being some of the property OF the tax
payer, the Treasurer should hold it and
pay it over to the Tax Collector on account
OF delinquent taxes.
Attorneys Craven & Craven argued that