City & County of San Francisco v. Phelan
California Supreme Court
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a motion for-a new trial. Hunt, Jr., J. This is an action brought by the City and County of. San Francisco against the defendant, James Phelan, to recover taxes assessed and levied upon the personal property of defendant for the fiscal year 1876-1877. The assessment .was made upon “money.”
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a motion for-a new trial. Hunt, Jr., J. This is an action brought by the City and County of. San Francisco against the defendant, James Phelan, to recover taxes assessed and levied upon the personal property of defendant for the fiscal year 1876-1877. The assessment .was made upon “money.” The plaintiff had judgment in the Court below; the defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. After the decision in…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court :
1. The assessment was made tt> the defendant by name. The recital in the assessment book under the head “ Description of Property,” that “the property is assessed to parties listed and to all owners and claimants known or unknown,” was an idle recital, and did not place the assessment within the principle decided in Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal. 365, and the other eases therein referred to.
2. The statute makes the duplicate assessment-roll, or a certified copy, prima facie evidence of a right to recover. This necessarily makes the roll, or the copy, some evidence that the person…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hearst v. EgglestoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Salisbury v. ShirleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- People v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939