TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reclamation District No. 3 v. Goldman

RECLAMATION DISTRICT No. 3 v. CHARLES GOLDMAN

Reclamation Dist. No. 3 v. Goldman, 61 Cal. 205 (1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 28, 1882
Docket
No. 8,459
Judges
Sharpstein
Citations
61 Cal. 2051882 Cal. LEXIS 579
Syllabus
Reclamation of Swamp Lands—Repeal of Statute—Local Taxation. In an action to recover an assessment tax for reclamation purposes levied during the year 1876, under the Act of March 28, 1868, entitled “An Act to provide for the management and sale of land belonging to the State,” it was objected on demurrer that the Act was repealed by the Code. Held: The provisions of the Act referred to with reference to assessments for reclamation purposes were provisions “in relation to taxation for local purposes ” and therefore (under Subd. 25 of § 19) were not repealed by the Political Code.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant in the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. The action was to recover an assessment for reclamation purposes levied in the year 1876 under the Act referred to in the opinion, in a swamp land district formed before the Codes were enacted. A petition for rehearing in bank was filed after judgment and denied.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sharpstein

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

Sharpstein, J.:

If the Act of March 28,1868 (Stats. 1867-8, p. 507), under which the plaintiff claims to have organized, contains any provision “ in relation to taxation for local purposes,” such provision was not repealed by the enactment of the Political Code. (Pol. C., Sec. 19.) The former act did provide that the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of its provisions should *208 assess upon the land to be reclaimed a tax proportionate to the whole expense and to the benefits which would result from the work, and that said tax should be collected and paid into the county treasury. Did that constitute it an act in relation to taxation for local purposes?” If it relates to taxation, it is doubtless “ to taxation for local purposes.” It provides for taxation by special assessments, which “ are made on the assumption that a portion of the community is to be specially and peculiarly benefited in the enhancement of the value of property peculiarly situated as regards a contemplated expenditure of public funds; and in addition to the general levy, they demand that special contributions, in consideration of the special benefit, shall be made by the person receiving it.” (Cooley on Taxation, 416.) “ Charges and impositions,” says Folger, J., in Buffalo City Cemetery v. Buffalo ( 46 N. Y., 506 ), “which are laid directly upon the property in a circumscribed locality, to effect some work of local convenience, which in its result is of peculiar advantage and importance to the property especially assessed for the expense of it, are not public, but are local and private” within the meaning of a statute which exempted cemeteries from “all public taxes, rates and assessments.” “Publictaxes, rates and assessments are those which are levied and taken out of the property of the person assessed, for some public or general use or purpose, in which he has no direct, immediate and peculiar interest.” (id.)

Now the Act of 1868 speaks of the charges and impositions which it authorizes to be laid upon the lands within a reclamation district as taxes; and in providing for their assessment it provides for taxation; and an Act which provides for taxation relates to taxation and, as before stated, this Act relates to local taxation, if to any. Therefore it was not repealed by the Political Code. Whether it could be repealed without impairing the obligation of a contract is a question which it is not now necessary to decide.

Judgment reversed with directions to the Court below to overrule the demurrer with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after being notified thereof.

McKinstry, Myrick, McKee, and Thornton, JJ., and Morrison, O. J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1883–1884: 318832026peak 1883 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Swamp Land District No. 121 v. Haggin30 P. 631 (Cal. 1883)
  2. Lima v. Cemetery Ass'n42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 128 (1884)
  3. Reclamation District No. 3 v. Goldman4 P. 676 (Cal. 1884)

Most recent

  1. Reclamation District No. 3 v. Goldman4 P. 676 (Cal. 1884)
  2. Lima v. Cemetery Ass'n42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 128 (1884)
  3. Swamp Land District No. 121 v. Haggin30 P. 631 (Cal. 1883)

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
Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buffalo, 46 N.Y. 506 (1871) 36

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