TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Culverwell

THE PEOPLE v. S. S. CULVERWELL, and Certain Real Estate

People v. Culverwell, 44 Cal. 620 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1872
Docket
No. 2,925
Judges
Rhodes
Citations
44 Cal. 620
Syllabus
Assessment of Blocks in a City. — Blocks of land in a city may be assessed for taxation by blocks, when they are assessed to the owner, even if they have been subdivided into lots. Assessing Land and Improvements Thereon.—Although, under the Itevenue Act of 1861, the Assessor need not place the value of the land and the improvements thereon in separate columns, where both are assessed to the same person, yet, if he does, so, the assessment is not radically defective, and does not show that the improvements were twice assessed. Effect of Suffering a Default. — A defendant who tails to answer within the time allowed by the Court on the overruling of his demurrer, and whose default is entered, is not entitled to participate in the further proceedings in the case. Default in Tax Suit.—After the default of a defendant has been entered, in a suit to recover delinquent taxes, the Court may enter judgment on the pleadings.
Summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Seventeenth Judicial District, County of San Diego. Action to recover taxes assessed for tbe year 1869 on Lot B, Block 765; Lot A, Block 773; Lot B, Block 773; Lot E, Block 765; Lots E, II, and I, same block; Block 743, Block 559, Block 567, Block 568, Block 571, Block 632, Block 659, Block 662, and west half of Lot 1148, eighty acres in tbe City of San Diego. The complaint averred that defendant Culverwell owned the property and that it was assessed to him. The defendant Culverwell demurred to the complaint, the Court overruled the demurrer, and defendant was allowed ten days to answer, but failing to answer, default was entered. The defendants then appeared in Court and objected to a judgment without evidence to sustain the complaint. The Court overruled the objection and entered judgment by default without any evidence. The defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rhodes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

The complaint in this case appears to be drawn with more than usual care and skill. It does not appear whether the blocks of land which were assessed to the defendant had been subdivided. If they had not been subdivided, they were properly assessed and described in the complaint by blocks; and if they had been subdivided, still that description was sufficient, as they were assessed to the defendant as the owner. (People v. Morse, 43 Cal. 534 .)

Improvements on real estate are, by section five of the General Revenue Act of 1861, classed as personal property; but section twenty, in stating the form of the assessment list, specifies “ value of improvements on real estate assessed to persons other than the owners of said real estate,” and does not provide a separate column for the value of improvements on real estate, owned by the person assessed. Although the Assessor need not, under that Act, place the value of the land and the improvements in separate columns, where both are assessed to the same person; yet if that course is pursued, the assessment is not radically defective. That mode of assessment does not show that the improvements were twice assessed. "We are of the opinion that the demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.

A defendant who fails to answer within the time allowed by the Court, on the overruling of his demurrer, and whose default is entered because of his failure to answer, is not entitled to participate in the further proceedings in the case, which eventuate in a judgment. After such default lias been entered in a suit for the recovery of delinquent taxes, the Court may enter judgment on the pleadings. If there be a provision in any of the numerous Acts in respect to tax suits, which requires the production of evidence, after all the alie *623 gations of the complaint are admitted by the defendants, it has not been brought to our notice.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent damages.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 11891: 11894: 11895: 11897: 11959: 11968: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cadwalader v. Nash14 P. 385 (Cal. 1887)
  2. Batchelor v. Finn341 P.2d 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
  3. Roth v. Gabbert27 S.W. 528 (Mo. 1894)
  4. Co-Operative Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Green51 P. 770 (Idaho 1897)
  5. Millbrook Farm v. Watson264 Cal. App. 2d 512 (1968)
  6. Jacobs v. Buckalew42 P. 619 (Ariz. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Millbrook Farm v. Watson264 Cal. App. 2d 512 (1968)
  2. Batchelor v. Finn341 P.2d 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
  3. Co-Operative Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Green51 P. 770 (Idaho 1897)
  4. Jacobs v. Buckalew42 P. 619 (Ariz. 1895)
  5. Roth v. Gabbert27 S.W. 528 (Mo. 1894)
  6. Land & River Imp. Co. v. Bardon45 F. 706 (1891)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Morse, 43 Cal. 534 (1872) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list