Crawford v. Schmidt

California Supreme Court

Crawford v. Schmidt

47 Cal. 617

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

DocketNo. 3.834

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 47 Cal. 617 (Crawford v. Schmidt) 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

Crawford v. Schmidt, 47 Cal. 617 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The land in controversy was the property of Caroline Schmidt, but was assessed to “-Schmidt,” omitting the Christian name. Section 13, of the Revenue Act of 1861, (Statutes 1861, p. 419) provides that the Assessor shall ascertain by diligent inquiry, “the names of all persons, corporations, associations, companies, or firms owning, claiming or having the possession or control ” of the property to be assessed, and shall list and assess the same to such person, corporation, etc., and if the name of such an absent owner is known to the Assessor, “the property shall be assessed in his, her or their name; and if unknown to the Assessor, the property shall be assessed to unknown owners.” The-statute is imperative, that the property must be assessed to the owner, if known, and if not, to uhknown owners. In this case the assessment' was not, and does not purport to have been, made to unknown owners. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the name of the owner was unknown to the Assessor. But instead of assessing the property to Caroline Schmidt, who was the owner, he assessed it to-Schmidt, a designation which would have applied as well to any other Schmidt, whether male or female, as to the real owner. We think this was not a compliance with the statute, and that the assessment and sale were void. (Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 617; People v. Sneath, 28 Cal. 615; Sharp v. Spear, 4 Hill. 89.)

Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

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

By the Court:

The land in controversy was the property of Caroline Schmidt, but was assessed to “-Schmidt,” omitting the Christian name. Section 13, of the Revenue Act of 1861, (Statutes 1861, p. 419) provides that the Assessor shall ascertain by diligent inquiry, “the names of all persons, corporations, associations, companies, or firms owning, claiming or having the possession or control ” of the property to be assessed, and shall list and assess the same to such person, corporation, etc., and if the name of such an absent owner is known to the Assessor, “the property shall be assessed in his, her or their name; and if unknown to the Assessor, the property shall be assessed to unknown owners.” The-statute is imperative, that the property must be assessed to the owner, if known, and if not, to uhknown owners. In this case the assessment' was not, and does not purport to have been, made to unknown owners. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the name of the owner was unknown to the Assessor. But instead of assessing the property to Caroline Schmidt, who was the owner, he assessed it to-Schmidt, a designation which would have applied as well to any other Schmidt, whether male or female, as to the real owner. We think this was not a compliance with the statute, and that the assessment and sale were void. (Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 617; People v. Sneath, 28 Cal. 615; Sharp v. Spear, 4 Hill. 89.)

Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Cal. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-schmidt-cal-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack