County of Yuba v. Adams & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, in the County of Yuba, dismissing petition of intervention.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, in the County of Yuba, dismissing petition of intervention. Adams & Co., hankers, having a house in Marysville, in Yuba county, failed in February, 1855. At the time of their failure, their agent, in Marysville, deposited, as a general deposit, with Brumagim & Co., the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars belonging to Adams & Co., and which bad been used about their business in said city, the certificates of deposit being taken in the name of Cohen, receiver in the suit of Adams v. Haskell et al. A tax for county…
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, J.
The several objections to the right of the county to institute this proceeding, are, as we think, settled by the six hundred and fifty-ninth section of our Practice Act, which provides, that any person shall be entitled to intervene in an action, who has an interest in the matter in litigation in the success of either party, or an interest against both.
By our Revenue Act, money is included in the term “personal property,” and is subject to be assessed for taxes, whether in the hands of the owner, or any other person. See Acts of 1854, p. 104, §§ 60-74.
The levy of the tax gave to the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Lewis v. HarwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Taggart v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Trustees for the Support of Public Schools v. Inhabitants of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1879
- People v. National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.