Bode v. Holtz

3 P. 495, 65 Cal. 106, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 462
California Supreme Court·Decided March 17, 1884·No. No. 9,176·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

3 P. 495 (Bode v. Holtz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)