Graham Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Graham Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

44 P.2d 452, 6 Cal. App. 2d 203, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 878

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 16, 1935

DocketCiv. 10144

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 P.2d 452 (Graham Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graham Bros., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 44 P.2d 452, 6 Cal. App. 2d 203, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 878 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover the purchase price of a quantity of rock and gravel including the amount of the tax imposed by the Retail Sales Tax Act of 1933 (Stats. 1933, p. 2599), which item was separately stated. The judgment was for the full amount of the claim including the tax. The contention of the city is that the tax is a sales tax and as such is laid upon the property purchased *204 and is paid by the consumer; that because of the constitutional exemption (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1) the city cannot be compelled to pay taxes on property; that under the law in question, in any event, the city cannot be compelled to pay taxes. A necessary element in all of the city’s contentions is that the tax is paid by the city. If the decision is adverse to the city with reference to this element, the city’s contentions fall.

The question seems to be already definitely settled in California against the city. (People v. Ventura Refining Co., 204 Cal. 286 [268 Pac. 347, 283 Pac. 60]; People v. Herbert’s of Los Angeles, Inc., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 482 [39 Pac. (2d) 829]; Meyer Construction Co. v. Corbett, 7 Fed. Supp. 616.) Upon the authority of these cases we hold that the tax is a tax imposed against the retailer and not against the city. The underlying principles of this case are somewhat more definitely discussed and supporting authorities cited in Rio Grande Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles (ante, p. 200 [44 Pac. (2d) 451]), decided by us this day.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., concurred.

"A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1935.

Thompson, J., voted for a hearing.

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

CRAIL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover the purchase price of a quantity of rock and gravel including the amount of the tax imposed by the Retail Sales Tax Act of 1933 (Stats. 1933, p. 2599), which item was separately stated. The judgment was for the full amount of the claim including the tax. The contention of the city is that the tax is a sales tax and as such is laid upon the property purchased *204 and is paid by the consumer; that because of the constitutional exemption (Const., art. XIII, sec. 1) the city cannot be compelled to pay taxes on property; that under the law in question, in any event, the city cannot be compelled to pay taxes. A necessary element in all of the city’s contentions is that the tax is paid by the city. If the decision is adverse to the city with reference to this element, the city’s contentions fall.

The question seems to be already definitely settled in California against the city. (People v. Ventura Refining Co., 204 Cal. 286 [268 Pac. 347, 283 Pac. 60]; People v. Herbert’s of Los Angeles, Inc., 3 Cal. App. (2d) 482 [39 Pac. (2d) 829]; Meyer Construction Co. v. Corbett, 7 Fed. Supp. 616.) Upon the authority of these cases we hold that the tax is a tax imposed against the retailer and not against the city. The underlying principles of this case are somewhat more definitely discussed and supporting authorities cited in Rio Grande Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles (ante, p. 200 [44 Pac. (2d) 451]), decided by us this day.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., concurred.

"A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 13, 1935.

Thompson, J., voted for a hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 P.2d 452, 6 Cal. App. 2d 203, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-bros-inc-v-city-of-los-angeles-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack