Case Name: JOSEPH B. HOUGHTON et al. v. ALEXANDER AUSTIN, Tax Collector in and for the City and County of San Francisco
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 47 Cal. 646
Docket Number: No. 4,125
Parties: JOSEPH B. HOUGHTON et al. v. ALEXANDER AUSTIN, Tax Collector in and for the City and County of San Francisco.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 646–674

Head Matter:
[No. 4,125.]
JOSEPH B. HOUGHTON et al. v. ALEXANDER AUSTIN, Tax Collector in and for the City and County of San Francisco.
State Boabd fob the Equalization of Taxes.—Section 3,666 of the Eolitioal Code is unconstitutional, in so far as it delegates to the State Board of Equalization the light to fix the rate of taxation, “ after allowing for delinquency in the collection of taxes,” because it is a delegation of legislative power to said Board.
Idem.—The Legislature cannot confer on a State Board for the equalization of taxes, appointed by the Governor, the power to add to or deduct from the assessed value of property, as fixed by the Assessors elected by the people, for such power would in effect constitute such Board of Assessors.
Enjoining Collection ox Tax.—An injunction will not be granted to restrain the collection of a tax by a sale of the property of the tax-payer. Before a Court of Equity will lend its aid in such case it must be made to appear that, after a sale, a deed is about to be executed which will .cast a cloud on the title.
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
The plaintiffs were severally the owners of lots in the city and county of San Francisco, and of personal property therein, which was assessed for purposes of taxation for the fiscal year 1872-3. The defendant was the tax collector for said city and county. The Board of Supervisors of said city and county, on the seventh day of October, 1872, levied for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, a tax of one hundred cents on the one hundred dollars, for city and county purposes, but did not make .a levy of a tax for State purposes.
By the Political Code, passed at the session of the Legislature, held in 1871-2, there was created a State Board of Equalization, consisting of three members, two of whom were appointed by the Governor, and the Controller of the State, ex officio, was the third member. Upon this Board was conferred, among others, the following powers and duties : To prescribe rules and regulations to govern Supervisors when equalizing, and Assessors when assessing, taxes; to equalize the valuation of the property of the several counties in the State, and fix the rate of State taxation. Section 3693 of the Political Code is as follows:
“3693. When the property is found to be assessed above or below its full cash value, the Board must add to or deduct from the valuation of—
“1. The real estate;
“ 2. Improvements upon such real estate;
“ 3. The personal property, except money;
“4. ' The amount of money;
“ Such per centum respectively as is sufficient to.raise or reduce it to the full cash value.”
The following is section 3696 of the same code:
“ 3696. At the same time, the Board must determine and transmit to the Board of Supervisors of each county the rate of the State tax to be levied and collected, which, after allowing for delinquency in the collection of taxes, must be sufficient to raise the specific .amount of revenue directed to be raised by the Legislature for State purposes.”
Section 13 of Article XI of the Constitution is as follows:
“Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. All property in the State shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained by law; but Assessors and Collectors of town, county, and State taxes shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county, or town in which the property taxed for State, county, or town purposes, is situated. ”
The fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, was the twenty-fourth fiscal year. Section 3713 of the Political Code made it the duty of the State Board of Equalization, for the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth fiscal years, to fix such an ad valorem rate of taxation upon each one hundred dollars value of taxable property, as would raise for said years, for the General Fund, $1,190,000; for the School Fund, $240,000; for the Interest and Sinking Fund of 1857, $140,000; for the Interest and Sinking Fund of i860, $9,000; for the State Capitol Fund, $200,000; for the Military Fund, $60,-000; for the Soldiers Bounty, Interest and Sinking Fund, $43,000; for the Soldiers' Belief, Interest and Sinking Fund, $25,000; for the Pacific Bailroad 'Fund, $105,000; for the State Normal School Building Fund, $75,000; and for the State Capitol Bonds, Interest and Sinking Fund, $35,000. By section 3,714, it was made the duty of the Boards of Supervisors of the several counties, on the- first Monday of October, to fix the rate of county taxes, and to levy the State and county tax. By section 3715 it was pro vicled that the action of the State Board of Equalization, in fixing the rate of taxation for State purposes, should be, in the absence of a levy of the same by the Board of Supervisors, a valid levy of the rate of State taxation fixed by the State Board of Equalization. Sections 3717 and 3718 make the tax upon personal property a lien on the real property of the owner from the time the personal property is assessed, and the tax on real property a lien thereon, which attaches on the first Monday in March in each year.
The total value-of real estate and personal property in the several counties of the State, as fixed by the State Board of Equalization, for the twenty-fourth fiscal year, was $636,-425,240. The State Board of Equalization reduced the valuation of property in some of the counties, as fixed by the Assessors and Boards of Supervisors, acting as a board of county equalization. The State Board of Equalization, on the sixteenth day of September, 1872, levied, for the twenty-fourth fiscal year, a State tax of fifty cents on the hundred dollars. The-defendant, as taxcollector, advertised the property of the plaintiffs for sale on the twenty-sixth day of February, 1873, for the taxes of the twenty-fourth fiscal year, which became delinquent on the first Monday in January, 1873. This action was brought to enjoin the sale and collection of the tax. The complaint averred that the tax was a cloud on their title, and that the defendant threatened to sell and give a deed, and that the deed would be primary evidence that the property was assessed as required by law, that the valuation was equalized as required by law, that the tax was levied as required by law, and that the deed would be conclusive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings, and would cloud the title of the plaintiffs, and greatly depreciate the value of their property. The Court below granted a preliminary injunction. The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiffs declining to amend, final judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed.
The case was argued at great length, and submitted on the argument thus made, and the printed arguments and briefs in Saving and Loan Society v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415. A reference to the published argument of counsel in that case will be sufficient to illustrate most of the points made here.
J. B. Felton, W. 2. Patterson and Alexander Campbell, Sr., and I. N. Thorne and Nathaniel Bennett for the Appellants.
Creed Haymond, for the Respondent, in relation to the injunction, argued that the collection of the tax by a sale of the property, would not be enjoined, because the tax became a lien by.the statute in March, 1872, and the collector could not by any act of his, create a lien, and because the lien was not affected by a sale of the property, and that no act could be done to cast a cloud on the title until a sale,, and a deed was about to be executed to the purchaser; and that, if .the tax was void, no cloud could be cast on the title. He also argued that a Court of Equity would never interfere to prevent a sale of property for taxes, owing to the embarrassment it would create in the public service; and cited Palmer v. Boling, 8 Cal. 388; Burr v. Hunt, 18 Cal. 307; Bucknell v. Story, 36 Cal. 67; Leach v. Day, 27 Cal. 643; Messick v. Board of Supervisors of Columbia County, 50 Barbour, 190, and Brewer v. City of Springfield, 97 Mass. 152.
John L. Love, Attorney-General, and W. G. Burnett, also, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court:
In view of the urgent necessity for an early decision of this cause, we deem it proper to announce the conclusions to which a majority of the Courts has arrived, reserving to each of the Justices the privilege of filing an opinion hereafter, if he shall elect to do so.
The Chief Justice, and Justices Niles and McKjnstry, are of opinion:
1. That section 3696 of the Political Code is unconstitutional, in so far as it delegates to the State Board of Equalization the right to fix the rate of taxation, " after allowing for delinquency in the collection of taxqs." They consider this to be a delegation of legislative power in derogation of the Constitution.
2. That section 3693 of the same code in effect constitutes the State Board of Equalization Assessors, and is, therefore, in conflict with Section 13, Article XI, of the Constitution.
Justices Rhodes and Ceookett do not concur in these views; but, on the contrary, hold, that these sections are not unconstitutional for either of the reasons alleged. Moreover, they consider it as no longer an open question in this Court.
The Chief Justice and Justices Rhodes, Ceookett and Niles are, however, of opinion, that the remedy by injunction is not the proper remedy in this action. Justice Mc-Ejnstey holds the contrary opinion as to the remedy.
" Judgment affirmed.