Case Name: J. R. PERKINS, Appellant, v. L. L. RALLS et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1886-09-24
Citations: 71 Cal. 87
Docket Number: No. 11537
Parties: J. R. PERKINS, Appellant, v. L. L. RALLS et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
[No. 11537.
Department Two.
September 24, 1886.]
J. R. PERKINS, Appellant, v. L. L. RALLS et al., Respondents.
Action against Tax Assessor—Damages for Fraudulent Assessment — Superior Court—Jurisdiction. —The Superior Court has no jurisdiction of an action against a tax assessor to recover damages alleged to have been caused by reason of a wrongful and fraudulent assessment made by him, if the amount claimed is less than three hundred dollars.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lassen County.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
E. V. Spencer, and J. E. Raker, for Appellant.
C. G. Kelley, and A. L. Shinn, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Foote, C.
The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants — a tax assessor and his sureties—on his official bond, for the sum of $132 damages, which he alleged he had suffered by reason of a wrongful and fraud ulent assessment made by Ralls, one-of the defendants. The complaint was demurred to on several grounds, among which was this:—
"That this court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action."
The action was brought in the Superior-Court of the county of Lassen.
The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff declining to amend his complaint, judgment was rendered against him for one dollar costs, from which he has appealed.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the assessor for his alleged wrongful and malicious act, and for that purpose he brings an ordinary action for damages in the Superior Court for less than three hundred dollars. The action was not, in our opinion, within the jurisdiction of that court, under section 76, subdivision 3, Code of Civil Procedure.
It did not, within the purview of that section, involve " the legality of a tax."" The reasoning of this court in Brown v. Rice, 52 Cal. 491, is applicable to this case.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Searls, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.