Bode v. Holtz

3 P. 495, 65 Cal. 106, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 462
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 17, 1884
DocketNo. 9,176
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 P. 495 (Bode v. Holtz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bode v. Holtz, 3 P. 495, 65 Cal. 106, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 462 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

The Court.

The complaint shows upon its face that the plaintiffs, at 12 o’clock M. on the first Monday in March, 1883, had in their possession some personal property belonging to citizens of the city and county of San Francisco which was subject to taxation, and that after demand made upon them by the assessor of [107]*107that city and county they refused to disclose the names of the owners or the description of the property. The law made it the duty of the plaintiffs to furnish the assessor with a statement of the property in their possession. (Pol. Code, § 3629.) Failing in that regard, the assessor was authorized and required by section 3633 of the same Code to note such refusal on the assessment book, and to make an estimate of the value of the property.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

S. W. Straus & Co. v. County of Los Angeles
17 P.2d 757 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles
86 P. 844 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 P. 495, 65 Cal. 106, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bode-v-holtz-cal-1884.