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…
1ConcurrenceWallace, C. J.
My views as to the constitutionality of that portion of the Political Code which creates the State Board of Equalization and defines its duties, were set forth in my dissenting opinion, in Savings and Loan Society v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415, and to those views I still adhere. But, for the reasons given ■ in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Ceookett in the same case at the last July term, I think that an injunction is not the proper remedy. I, therefore, think, that the judgment should be affirmed.
The foregoing opinion was delivered at the January Term, 1874. A rehearing was applied for by the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Providence Bank v. BillingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Hart v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. McCreeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- People v. San Francisco Sav. UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.