State ex rel. Hobart v. Huffaker
Nevada Supreme Court
Mandamus before the Supreme Court. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The twenty-five per centum penalty imposed is neither in the nature of costs nor tax; but it is a sum imposed partly by way of punishment, but chiefly by way of inducement to influence the taxpayer to pay his taxes without suit.
Read the full summary
Mandamus before the Supreme Court. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The twenty-five per centum penalty imposed is neither in the nature of costs nor tax; but it is a sum imposed partly by way of punishment, but chiefly by way of inducement to influence the taxpayer to pay his taxes without suit. It is a sum which the State had the right to impose and dispose of at pleasure; to appropriate to its own use as clearly as to appropriate the ten per cent, to the use of the county. (22 Cal. 365, 370), and when* rightfully imposed and not otherwise disposed of, it of necessity belongs to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Beatty, J.:
This is a proceeding by mandamus against the treasurer of Washoe county to compel him to pay into the state treasury the s-um of $5554.28, paid to him by the Central Pacific Railroad Company, under the provisions of “An act prescribing an additional penalty for non-payment of taxes in certain cases after suit,” approved March 7, 1873, which reads as follows: “Section 1. In all suits for the collection of delinquent taxes originally brought in the district courts, where the amount exceeds $300, the complaint and summons shall demand, and the judgment shall be entered,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Tacoma School District, No. 10 v. HedgesWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- County of Orange v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. MichenerIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- State ex rel. School City v. SwansonIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- County of Burlington v. MartinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.