Bowman v. Dewey

California Supreme Court

Bowman v. Dewey

8 P. 613, 2 Cal. Unrep. 566, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 875

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1885

DocketNo. 8480

StatusPublished

This text of 8 P. 613 (Bowman v. Dewey) 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

Bowman v. Dewey, 8 P. 613, 2 Cal. Unrep. 566, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 875 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

BELCHER, C. C.

This is an action to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a lot in the city of San Francisco, and to require the defendant to pay certain taxes which, it is alleged, are a lien on the lot. The contract provided that the title to the lot should be “good and marketable, and free of all encumbrances.” The complaint alleges that in the fiscal year 1880-81 the assessor of the city and county of San Francisco made a special and supplemental assessment of certain personal property owned by the defendant, under the provisions of the act of March 18, 1874 (Stats. 1873-74, p. 477), and that the taxes so levied have not been paid, and are a lien and encumbrance on the lot. The defendant demurred to the complaint and at the same time answered thereto. By his answer he denied that the said taxes ever became or were a lien on the lot, and he alleged, among other things, that the said special or supplemental assessment was invalid because it was made after the fourth Monday of July, Í880, and after the board of equalization had adjourned, and without any order or direction of the board of supervisors, or the board of equalization. The plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or counterclaim to the cause of action set forth in the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer to the complaint, [567]*567and overruled the demurrer to the answer; and, the plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The appeal is from that judgment.

It is apparent that the only question presented for decision is, Was the tax founded on the assessment in question a lien upon the lot of land described in the complaint ? A similar assessment was involved in the case of People v. Pittsburg R. Co., 67 Cal. 625, 8 Pac. 381, and was held by this court to be invalid.

Upon the authority of that case the judgment here should be affirmed.

We concur: Searls, C.; Foote, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.

We dissent: Myrick, J.; Thornton, J.

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

BELCHER, C. C.

This is an action to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a lot in the city of San Francisco, and to require the defendant to pay certain taxes which, it is alleged, are a lien on the lot. The contract provided that the title to the lot should be “good and marketable, and free of all encumbrances.” The complaint alleges that in the fiscal year 1880-81 the assessor of the city and county of San Francisco made a special and supplemental assessment of certain personal property owned by the defendant, under the provisions of the act of March 18, 1874 (Stats. 1873-74, p. 477), and that the taxes so levied have not been paid, and are a lien and encumbrance on the lot. The defendant demurred to the complaint and at the same time answered thereto. By his answer he denied that the said taxes ever became or were a lien on the lot, and he alleged, among other things, that the said special or supplemental assessment was invalid because it was made after the fourth Monday of July, Í880, and after the board of equalization had adjourned, and without any order or direction of the board of supervisors, or the board of equalization. The plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or counterclaim to the cause of action set forth in the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer to the complaint, [567]*567and overruled the demurrer to the answer; and, the plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The appeal is from that judgment.

It is apparent that the only question presented for decision is, Was the tax founded on the assessment in question a lien upon the lot of land described in the complaint ? A similar assessment was involved in the case of People v. Pittsburg R. Co., 67 Cal. 625, 8 Pac. 381, and was held by this court to be invalid.

Upon the authority of that case the judgment here should be affirmed.

We concur: Searls, C.; Foote, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.

We dissent: Myrick, J.; Thornton, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 P. 613, 2 Cal. Unrep. 566, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-dewey-cal-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack