Martin v. Aston
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. Logan, J. Action of replevin. The property was taken by the defendant, who was Assessor of Santa Cruz County, for road property tax, under Sections 3820 and 3821 of the Political Code. The twelfth finding, referred to in the argument of appellant’s counsel, was as follows: “ Twelfth.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. Logan, J. Action of replevin. The property was taken by the defendant, who was Assessor of Santa Cruz County, for road property tax, under Sections 3820 and 3821 of the Political Code. The twelfth finding, referred to in the argument of appellant’s counsel, was as follows: “ Twelfth. That said city levied and collected for the fiscal year A. d. 1880-81, upon all the property in said city, the following tax: for the Fire Fund of the city, seven cents on each one hundred dollars; for the purpose of sewerage and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
Under the Charter of the City of Santa Cruz (Stat. 1875-*691876, p. 189, etc.), the Common Council of the city has power to lay out and improve streets within the city, and to raise money therefor by assessment and taxation. The Court below found that all the streets and alleys within the city limits are wholly maintained, improved, and kept in repair by the city. Therefore, according to Section 2664, Political Code, the appellant had no authority to collect taxes for road purposes from inhabitants of or property within the city.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Benjamin Kohn v. State Bar of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- Miller v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Board of Commissioners v. OwenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1884