Legal Opinion

Security Savings Bank v. City & County of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1901No. S.F. No. 1267PublishedCited by 6 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke,j.

—This action was brought to recover the amount of certain taxes for the fiscal year 1896-97, paid by the plaintiff corporation under protest.

There were due to the plaintiff in May, 1896, upon outstanding solvent loans theretofore made by it, and secured by pledge of divers stocks and bonds, the sum of $578,200, and the further sum of $30,000, evidenced only by the promissory note of the borrower. In the statement delivered to the assessor by said plaintiff, of its property subject to taxation for said fiscal year, no mention was made of said outstanding loans. The assessor thereupon notified…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. City & County of San Francisco v. La Societe Francaise D'Epargnes Et De Prevoyance MutuelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Whiting Finance Co. v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Hooper v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
  4. Rosasco v. County of TuolumneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Wardall v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947

1 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