City & County of San Francisco v. Phelan
This text of 61 Cal. 617 (City & County of San Francisco v. Phelan) 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.
Opinion
1. The assessment was made tt> the defendant by name. The recital in the assessment book under the head “ Description of Property,” that “the property is assessed to parties listed and to all owners and claimants known or unknown,” was an idle recital, and did not place the assessment within the principle decided in Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal. 365, and the other eases therein referred to.
2. The statute makes the duplicate assessment-roll, or a certified copy, prima facie evidence of a right to recover. This necessarily makes the roll, or the copy, some evidence that the person named did own the property specified. Notwithstanding the testimony of the defendant that he did not have any money at the time of the assessment, the Court found against him; and with that finding, there being evidence to sustain it, this Court will not interfere.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 Cal. 617, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-county-of-san-francisco-v-phelan-cal-1882.