Legal Opinion

City of San Luis Obispo v. Pettit

California Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1891No. 13856PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

This was an action to recover delinquent taxes. The property taxed was a sum of money depos*500ited with the defendant in his official capacity, under an order of the superior court, in a pending case. During the fiscal year 1887-88, the defendant reported the deposit to the assessor, who, however, did not assess it to him, but (probably acting under a mistaken view of the law) assessed it to the plaintiffs in the suit. The tax was not paid. In the following year the property was assessed to the defendant. But upon the theory that it had “ escaped assessment ” the preceding year, the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ex parte ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Grimm v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Quicksilver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Hearst v. EgglestoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Grotefend v. UltzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Dare v. Lakeport City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. RCA Photophone Inc. v. HuffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. Rancho Santa Anita, Inc. v. City of ArcadiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. United States Overseas Airlines v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Dallas County v. BoydSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908

15 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