The San Francisco call., 1897-10-30
MRS.F FAIRS TAXES
MUST Be PAID
Judge SeaWell Declares the
Assessment to Be
Valid.
Slight Rebate Allowed on Ac-
count of Raise in
the Levy.
Bonds and Stocks Owned in This City
and Deposited in New York
Assessable Here.

Judge Saawell of the Superior Court yes
terGav handed down his opinion in the
case of John w. Mackay and R. V. Dey,
executors of the estate of the late Theresa
Fair against the city and county of San
Francisco. The claim was for S29, 532 05,
paid for taxes under protest, and the posi-
ton Of the city was sustained except as to
S3366 81 that was imposed on account of
raise In the levy ordered by the State
Board of Equalization.
The return of property offered by the
estate of Mrs. Fair included number of
stocks and bonds that were said to be
non-assessa bic in this State, and objection
was made to the assessment on the ground
that it was uncertain and, further. that
some of the bonds were in New York City.
In his opinion Judge Seawell clearly
lays down the law regarding assessment
in this State. He says:
We must presume that the Assessor in max
IN G the assessment acted in accordance with
law. The burden of proving the assessment
TO be Illegal is upon the plaintiffs. San Fran
cisco VS.. Flood, GA CAL, 504.
the laws of this State do not require the
same certainty and particularly IN assess
ments OF personal property as in those OF real
estate. "A failure 10 enumerate in detail such
personal propertY does not inValidate the as
sessment." Pol. Code, $3.50, sub 4.
II is not therefore correct to say that the as
sessment must BE- so specified that the party
assessed may know from an INSPECTION OF the
assessment-book what particular personal pn;,
| People VS.. Sheath, % Cal, 612, that the words
personal property" alone was sufficient de-
| scription OF the property assessed;
In San Francisco VS.. Flood, 64 Cal, 504,
| mining stocks" were held 10 be sufficient
| description. In neither OF those cases could
| the party assessed know from an inspection OF
| the Assessors books what particular article OF
personal property was assessed.
The taxpayer is not injured by the lack of
| certainty III the description He cannot be
| compelled to pay taxes upon property whicn
| be does not own. In People vs.. Saeath, q
| Cal, the defendants succeeded in the action
by proving that they did not own any personal
| property.
Under the rule stated in the cases 10 which
! have referred the asses ent is good upon
/ its face. Ii can be defeated by proof that the
estate of Mrs FAIR did not own the bonds
| mentioned in the inventory II was shown a.
! the trial that on the first Monday in March,
| 1894, said estate owned 1885 bonds of the
Soathern Pacific Railroad Company of ArI-
| zona and 81 bonds of the West Snore Railroad
| Company of New York, which were subject TO
taxation by the laws OF this State. II, as
! claimed by the plaintiffs, the bonds of the
| Northern Railway Company were exempt
| from taxation it will be presumed that such
| bonds were not assessed. The other bonds
\ men toned being sufficient to Justify the ec-
| Iion OF the Assessor my conclusion is that tn G
| assessment is not invalid.
| Itappearing that the estate OF Mrs. Fair
! owned the bonds above menttoned for the ag-
| greg ate sum OF $l.912 900. 1 must assume, IA
! support of the action OF the Assessor, that b e
assessed those bonds, and not other bonds
4 which the estate did not own, or W Mich were
| exempt from taxation. II the plaintiffs were
! dissatisfied with the valuation made by the
| Assessor they should have made application
| to the Board of Equalization tor a reduction
The bonds were assessed at 81, S82 000 The
| assessment was raised Is per cent by the
State Board of qusliZation-thereb eby making
the assessment 81, 164, 800. AS the State Boa I'd
OF Equalization had no power 10 raise the as
| ment above the face vslue OF the bonds,
| which was 81, ,912 900, 1t follows that so much
| of the taxes as was levied upon the sum of
| 1882 300, which is the difference between the
| face value OF the bonds ana the valuation
made by the State Board. is Illegal. A calcu-
| lation will show that II amounts 10 1886 "a.
| Judgment Will be entered Tor that amount
| and costs.
| This is the second victory for the city
| in regard to the taxes on Mrs. Fairs es-
tates within the past month, and Assist
ant City Attorney Rhodes Borden is pre-
pairing TO argue The third case next week.
where large amount is involved. In the
coming suit new point is TO be decided,
as the assessment was made after the