Case Name: HUNTINGTON HARTFORD, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1963-07-24
Citations: 218 Cal. App. 2d 613
Docket Number: Civ. No. 26833
Parties: HUNTINGTON HARTFORD, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 218
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Civ. No. 26833.
Second Dist., Div. Four.
July 24, 1963.]
HUNTINGTON HARTFORD, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Holbrook & Rourke, Holbrook, Rourke & Miles and W. Sumner Holbrook, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and John D. Cahill, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

Opinion:
BURKE, P. J
Plaintiff sued for a refund of ad valorem taxes levied against its property for the years 1954 to 1957, on the ground that the property was exempt from taxation under the so-called "welfare exemption." Recovery was denied by the trial court on the ground that, although plaintiff had taken all necessary procedural steps to claim the exemption prior to paying the taxes, it had not filed its refund claims within the three-year period set forth in section 5097 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Plaintiff's contention that compliance with this provision was not required by the refund statute (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 268) was expressly rejected by Division Two of this court in Samarkand of Santa Barbara, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 216 Cal.App.2d 341 [31 Cal.Rptr. 151] (hearing in Supreme Court denied).
On the authority of that ease, the judgment is affirmed.
Jefferson, J., and Kingsley, J., concurred.
Appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 18, 1963. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.