People ex rel. Love v. Austin
California Supreme Court
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate to the Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco. The defendant, who was Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco, had in his hands the sum of one hundred and thirty-one thousand four hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-six cents, which had been paid to him for taxes between the first Monday of October, 1872, and the first Monday in February, 1873. It was the duty of the Tax Collector to pay into…
Read the full summary
Application to the Supreme Court for writ of mandate to the Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco. The defendant, who was Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco, had in his hands the sum of one hundred and thirty-one thousand four hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-six cents, which had been paid to him for taxes between the first Monday of October, 1872, and the first Monday in February, 1873. It was the duty of the Tax Collector to pay into the Treasury of the City and County of San Francisco, all moneys in his hands, on said first Monday in February. On the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The facts set forth in the answer of the respondent, and in the interventions of Reese and others, are substantially the same which were involved in the cases of the Savings and Loan Society v. Austin, and Doe v. Austin, ante, p. 415. We held in those cases that upon these facts, the taxes which were sought to be enjoined were not illegal and void^ and their collection could not be restrained by injunction. For the same reason, the taxes paid by the interveners and others under protest, were not illegal, and cannot be recovered back from the respondent. The fact…
2Cited by1 opinion
- City and County of San Francisco v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877