Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

48 P.2d 35, 4 Cal. 2d 222, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 527

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 16, 1935

DocketS. F. 15423

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 48 P.2d 35 (Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles) 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

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 48 P.2d 35, 4 Cal. 2d 222, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 527 (Cal. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

LANGDON, J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondents to transfer money from the county treas *223 ury to the bond redemption fund to meet unpaid instalments of principal and interest on improvement bonds. The facts and issues in this proceeding are substantially similar to those presented in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, L. A. No. 15142 (ante, p. 220 [48 Pac. (2d) 34]), and Sawyer v. County of San Luis Obispo, L. A. No. 15178 (post, p. 776 [48 Pac. (2d) 35]), this day decided The only difference is that in the instant ease a special tax was actually levied to meet the delinquency, but subsequently the board of supervisors canceled the appropriation. The respondent county herein argues that unless there are separate sales for delinquencies in assessments and general taxes, its liability does not exist. As we pointed out in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, supra, the mandatory duty to levy the special tax is not affected by the procedure followed in sales for delinquencies, and it is accordingly improper in this proceeding to attempt to set forth the construction of the statutory provisions governing such sales.

Let a writ of mandate issue as prayed.

Seawell, J., Waste, C. J., Preston, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

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

LANGDON, J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondents to transfer money from the county treas *223 ury to the bond redemption fund to meet unpaid instalments of principal and interest on improvement bonds. The facts and issues in this proceeding are substantially similar to those presented in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, L. A. No. 15142 (ante, p. 220 [48 Pac. (2d) 34]), and Sawyer v. County of San Luis Obispo, L. A. No. 15178 (post, p. 776 [48 Pac. (2d) 35]), this day decided The only difference is that in the instant ease a special tax was actually levied to meet the delinquency, but subsequently the board of supervisors canceled the appropriation. The respondent county herein argues that unless there are separate sales for delinquencies in assessments and general taxes, its liability does not exist. As we pointed out in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, supra, the mandatory duty to levy the special tax is not affected by the procedure followed in sales for delinquencies, and it is accordingly improper in this proceeding to attempt to set forth the construction of the statutory provisions governing such sales.

Let a writ of mandate issue as prayed.

Seawell, J., Waste, C. J., Preston, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 P.2d 35, 4 Cal. 2d 222, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-co-v-county-of-los-angeles-cal-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack