Placer County v. Astin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Placer. Placer county sued Samuel Astin, and his bondsmen, and for cause thereof proved that Astin, as tax-collector, had received a large sum of money, which he had failed to pay over. The principal defence was that the taxes for that year had been illegally levied by'the Court of Sessions, and that he, as tax-collector, would be responsible to the tax-payers for the amount thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, County of Placer. Placer county sued Samuel Astin, and his bondsmen, and for cause thereof proved that Astin, as tax-collector, had received a large sum of money, which he had failed to pay over. The principal defence was that the taxes for that year had been illegally levied by'the Court of Sessions, and that he, as tax-collector, would be responsible to the tax-payers for the amount thereof. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants moved for a new trial, which being denied, they appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, J.
This was an action on an official bond, instituted to recover a certain sum collected by Astin, as sheriff and ex officio tax-collector of Placer county, and which he failed to pay over, to the county treasurer, as required by law. A jury being waived, the case was tried by the Court, who found that defendant, Astin, was duly elected and qualified as sheriff of Placer county. That the bond sued on was duly executed by the defendants. The Court also found the amount of taxes assessed, the amount collected by Astin, and that after deducting the sum paid into the treasury, and the per centage…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Yamhill County v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. MalcomIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
- People ex rel. Dunn v. BunkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. O'loughlinUtah Supreme Court · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.