Houghton v. Austin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs were severally the owners of lots in the city and county of San Francisco, and of personal property therein, which was assessed for purposes of taxation for the fiscal year 1872-3. The defendant was the tax collector for said city and county.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs were severally the owners of lots in the city and county of San Francisco, and of personal property therein, which was assessed for purposes of taxation for the fiscal year 1872-3. The defendant was the tax collector for said city and county. The Board of Supervisors of said city and county, on the seventh day of October, 1872, levied for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, a tax of one hundred cents on the one hundred dollars, for city and county purposes, but did not make .a levy…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
In view of the urgent necessity for an early decision of this cause, we deem it proper to announce the conclusions to which a majority of the Courts has arrived, reserving to each of the Justices the privilege of filing an opinion hereafter, if he shall elect to do so.
The Chief Justice, and Justices Niles and McKjnstry, are of opinion:
1. That section 3696 of the Political Code is unconstitutional, in so far as it delegates to the State Board of Equalization the right to fix the rate of taxation, “ after allowing for delinquency in the collection of taxqs.” They consider *651this to…
2Cited by41 opinions
- Hopping v. Council of City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Ames v. People ex rel. TempleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
- Dean v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Ex parte WallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.