Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. HENRY GERKE
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1868
Citations: 35 Cal. 677
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. HENRY GERKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. HENRY GERKE.
Constitutionality or Revenue Laws—Taxation.—The Revenue Laws of the State are unconstitutional, so far as they exempt private property from taxation; and all parts thereof relating to such exemption must be disregarded.
Idem—Growing Crops.—Growing crops are private property, and subject to taxation, the provision of said statute exempting them notwithstanding.
Appeal from the District Court, Second Judicial District, Tehama County.
This was an action to recover delinquent taxes. The Court below found as a fact that the property upon which the delinquent tax was assessed was a growing crop, and found, as a conclusion of law, that such property was exempt from taxation.
Judgment passed for the defendant, and the People appealed.
Jo Hamilton, Attorney General, for Appellant.
The provisions of the Revenue Laws exempting growing crops from taxation are unconstitutional and void. (Art. XI, Sec. 13, of State Const.; People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433.)
P. L. Edwards, for Respondent.
The property in controversy was found by the Court below to be a growing crop, which, it is conceded, is exempt from taxation under the statute. By the other side it is urged that the statute creating the exemption is unconstitutional. This, on our part, is denied; but even if the assumption be correct, the Constitution cannot execute itself. Of itself it is inoperative. (Cary v. Fall, 6 Cal. 630; Pfeifer v. Riehn, 13 Cal. 649.) Suppose the statute is unconstitutional, what then? It only results that the People are without a remedy as to their supposed right until there shall be further legislation. Here there is no semblance of ground for the operation of the rule in The People v. McCreery and kindred cases. In these cases the Legislature had directly sought to enforce an unconstitutional tax. The Courts have no means and no power to avoid the effects of non-action, as in this case. (Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 348; People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 60.)

Opinion:
By the Court, Sanderson, J. :
In the case of The People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433, we held the ¡Revenue Laws of this State to be unconstitutional, so far as they exempt private property from taxation. It follows that, in reading those laws, all parts thereof relating to the exemption of private property must be disregarded.
The property in question in this case was private property, and was therefore taxable.
Judgment reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice ¡Rhodes expressed no opinion.