Case Name: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. S. V. HORTON et al., as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1916-09-21
Citations: 173 Cal. 396
Docket Number: L. A. No. 4937
Parties: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. S. V. HORTON et al., as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 173
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 4937.
In Bank.
September 21, 1916.]
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. S. V. HORTON et al., as Members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, Respondents.
Municipal Corporations—Reimbursement for Loss of Revenue Due to Change in Method of Taxation — Municipality not a “District.”—A municipality is not a “district” within the meaning of that word as used in subdivision f of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution, providing that “the legislature shall provide for reimbursement from the general funds of any county to districts therein where loss is occasioned in such districts by the withdrawal from local taxation of property taxed for state purposes only,” and in section 32 of the act of April 1, 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 539), to carry into effect the provisions of that section of the constitution.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Members of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Byron Waters, and Willis & Guthrie, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an application for a writ of mandate.
The sole question presented is whether a municipality, the city of San Bernardino in this instance, is a "district" within the meaning of that word as used in that part of subdivision f of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution reading as follows: "The legislature shall provide for reimbursement from the general funds of any county to districts therein where loss is occasioned in such districts by the withdrawal from local taxation of property taxed for state purposes only," and in section 32 of an act of the legislature to carry into effect the provisions of section 14 of article XIII of the constitution, approved April 1, 1911 (Stats. 1911, pp. 530, 556).
The court is unanimously of the view that it is not a district within the meaning of the word as used in these provisions.
The application for a writ of mandate is denied.
Rehearing denied.