Davis v. City & County of San Francisco
ANDREW M. DAVIS v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Syllabus
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.
McFarland, J.
A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiff having declined to amend, judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
The purpose of the action is to recover of the city and county of San Francisco, under the provisions of section 3819 of the Political Code, certain alleged taxes averred to have been paid by appellant under protest. But the alleged taxes were, in fact, founded upon special assessments for a specific purpose under an act of the legislature approved March 23,1876 (Stats. 1875-76, p. 433), generally known as the “Dupont Street Act,” to which the said section 3819 of the Political Code does not apply, and for which no action can be maintained against said city and county. This was expressly decided by this court in Easterbrook v. San Francisco, 44 Pac. Rep. 800 , and upon the authority of that case the judgment in the case at bar must be affirmed. (See, also, Elberg v. San Luis Obispo Co., 112 Cal. 316 ; Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. San Diego, 112 Cal. 314 .)
It is proper to state that Easterbroolc v. San Francisco, supra, had not been decided when this appeal was taken, or when the briefs in this case were filed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 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.