The record-union., 1898-01-29

Glenn for certain delinquent taxes paid
into the latteT's treasury. The case
had been pending a long while. Fos-
lowing is Judge Jollnson's decision:
This is an action brought by the
County of Colusa against the County
Of Glenn to recover the sum of ST.
622 ~ alleged to have been paid TO
the latter county for delinquent rail
road taxes for the years 1867.
AT the time these taxes became due
the territory now occupied by Glenn
County was part of Colusa County.
Glenn County was carved out Of Co.
lusa by an Act of the Legislature in
1891. There is no provision III the Act
for any division of the assets, or any
assumption of the liabilities OF the
County Of Colusa. The new county
commenced business without any cap
ital except such as might be furnished
by her own resources. (Statutes 1891
9S)
The Legislature being slau. or The
subject, Glenn gets nothing but the
right to set up house and go into busi-
ness on her own account, ami has no
claim upon any of the assets of Colusa.
CLOS Angeles County VS.. Orange Coun
ty, 81 Cal. 395. Kings County VS..
Johnson, 104 Cal 1893 Tulare Coun-
ty VS.. Kings County, III Cal. 1859
Glenn bases her right to the money
in question upon the action of the State
Board of Equalization, who in 1895 re-
assessed the railroad company for the
years mentioned. After the reaSSeSSS-
ment the company paid the money into
the State treasury. In the meantime
Glenn County was created and that
portion of the tax which comes from
the road lying in Glenn was paid over
to her, which Colusa wishes to recover
upon the ground that it was for an as
sessment for the years before the ere
alton of Glenn County.
The railroad prior to the reassess-
ment by the State Board of EqualiZa-
ton had refused to pay this tax. 1t
is apparent that the company had con-
ceived the idea that the taxes originally
levied were invalid. This also must
have been the view taken by the Leg
islature, for the session of 1898, stat
utes, 1898, 290, passed a general Act,
that in all cases where former assess
ments We're invalid, or should there
after be adjudged invalid, that the
State Board of Equalization might re-
assess the same. The apparent reason
for this Act, was decision of our Su-
preme Court People VS.. c. p. r. r.
Co. SO Cal. 393) when it seemed that
the sections of the Political Code, 1860,
and following, provides for the assess
ment of railroad property, and the col
lection of taxes thereon were uncon-
stitutional. This was in 1890, three
years before the passage of the Act in
question. In 1895, two years after the
passage Of the Act, the Supreme Court
say that they did not intend to decide
that the provisions Of the Political
Code above referred to were unconsti-
tutional, but on the contrary say that
they are constitutional. People VS.. c.
P. r. r. Co. 105 Cal. 576)
There is no decision SO far been
shown to the court that has declared the
assessment for the years in question
invalid. Upon the agreed statement
of facts upon which this case was tried
it was admitted that the assessments
were made regularly and in due course
of law.
That being the case the question next
to be considered, did the State Board
of Equalization when they assumed to
reassess. have jurisdiction so to do.
Boards of Equalization are tribunals
of limited jurisdiction. They cannot
act unless they have special power CIV
en- them. CFreeman on Judgments.
Sec. 531 State VS.. Allen, 43 Ill. 456.
Darling VS. Gunn so Ill. 424)
1t will be observed, as l have here
tofore intimated, that the Act of 1893
specially refers to these assessments.
Section 1 reads: Every assessment
Of property made after 1879, which IS
Invalid or may be hereafter adjudged
to be, by reason Of any illegality, inval-
idity or irregularity, declared or exist
ing in the assessment Of such PROPERTY
or in the mode provided for the assess
ment thereof. shall be remade. ETC."
1t seems clear that no such state OF
facts existed such as would authorize
the board to assume to act in this case
1t is true that the delinquent property
owners refused 70 pay their taxes. But
that is no reason for their assumption,
to act No reason was shown to TINS
court why the board should have as
sumed such powers as it did IN max
ing the reassessment. The board hay
ing no Jurisdiction its decision was
nullity. (Freeman on Judgments o25
State of Nevada VS.. Washoe Co. IA.
New. 140)
The action of the board in making
this reassessmeMt did not in any way
affect the old assessment. Estate v
Allen, 43 I'll. People vs.. Michaels, 80
III. GIT. Workingman's Banking Co vs..
Wolff. $50 H. 491)
The railroad was indebted TO the
county for the taxes for the years
named. and when it made it's payment
1t should have been applied to the as
sessment as 1t originally stood. The
railroad could not question the pay
ment It owed the taxes. its duty was
to pay, and as to the mode Of payment
1t had nothing to do. (Bucknall VS.
Story. 46 Cal 5S9)
The plaintiff was entitled to the mon>
ey, because If paid, it must have been
paid under the old assessment which
was for the years prior to the creation
of defendant as a county. and as ]
mentioned at the outset, ii was not en-
titled TO any OF the assets of Colusa
County, it could not claim taxes as
sessed prior to its creation. They be-
long to Colusa.
The Supreme Court already in this
case has determined that an action of
this kind win lie. one county against
another. The defendant has received
the money. The plaintiff has made the
necessary legal demand therefor. and
think should recover.
Judgment will be for the plaintiff for
the amount sued for.
Don't run any risks about health.