Legal Opinion

City of Oakland v. Southern Pacific Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1900No. S.F. No. 1664PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This action was brought to recover taxes claimed to be due plaintiff by defendant upon property owned by it on the first Monday of March, 1894. Findings were filed and judgment 'entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The amount of taxes that were due by defendant, according to the assessment as made by the city assessor, at the rate as fixed by the proper authorities, has been paid, and therefore the same is not involved in this action.

The council of plaintiff, sitting as a board of 'equalization, after notice…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. GoldtreeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  2. City & County of San Francisco v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  3. People v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Hagenmeyer v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Los Angeles v. Board of Equalization of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Byram v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Adams CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1932
  3. H. D. Haley & Co. v. McVayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Maurer v. WeatherbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  5. Stevens v. Fox Realty Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1972

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API