People v. Kohl
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. FRED. W. KOHL
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Spbague, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, Temple, J., and Oeockett, J., concurring:
The findings of the Court fail to support the judgment. From these findings it appears that defendant was the own *128 er of certain real estate in the county of Los Angeles, in tbe year 1868, wbicb was assessed to bim prior to the 23d of October of that year, for the fiscal year 1868-9, the taxes upon which assessment defendant subsequently paid; that defendant sold and conveyed the same land on.the 23d day of October to one Casad, receiving in consideration of such sale and conveyance $1,000 in hand and the note of Oasad for $8,000, payable at a future day, secured by mortgage on the same land; and from the complaint it appears that in November, 1868, the defendant, by order of the Board of Supervisors, was reassessed with the amount of this mortgage held by him from Casad.
This was clearly a double assessment, substantially, of the same property to the same individual, a proceeding, in our judgment, not contemplated by the statute and not authorized thereby.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to order judgment for defendant.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wallace, 'J.,
delivered the following opinion, Erodes, C. J., concurring:
I concur in the judgment on the ground that no lien, and, consequently, no liability to immediate taxation had accrued upon the note and mortgage at the time they were assessed. I think that the lien is inseparable from the liability itself, and as the statute provided at that time that the lien should attach on the first Monday of March of each year, it follows that the property to be taxed must have been in existence at that time, and that its non-existence at that time, as in this case, is conclusive agajnst the asserted right to impose the tax in question.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.