Grimley v. County of Santa Clara

9 P. 840, 68 Cal. 575, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 493
California Supreme Court·Decided February 25, 1886·No. No. 8965·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Foote, C.

— The plaintiff sued the county of Santa Clara to recover a sum of money alleged to have been “illegally and erroneously” collected for license taxes paid by him.

A demurrer was filed, which alleged as one of the grounds thereof that the facts stated in the complaint were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

It was sustained, and the plaintiff declining to answer over, judgment passed for the defendant and for costs, and this appeal was taken therefrom.

As appears from the complaint, the money sued for was not on account of any property taxes assessed, and it was voluntarily paid.

The plaintiff relied on section 3804 of the Political Code as upholding his contention, but in this he was mistaken, as it does not apply to an action such as the one under consideration, and no rule of law exists which authorizes him to recover. (Harper v. Rowe, 53 Cal. 234; Loomis v. County of Los Angeles, 59 Cal. 456; O’Brien v. Colusa County, 67 Cal. 503.)

[576] The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment should he affirmed.

Belcher, 0. C., and Searls, C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Grimley v. County of Santa Clara, 9 P. 840, 68 Cal. 575, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 493 (Cal. 1886).

9 P. 840 (Grimley v. County of Santa Clara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Christofferson v. Chouteau County
74 P.2d 427 (Montana Supreme Court, 1937)
Trower v. City and County of San Francisco
109 P. 617 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Allsman v. Oklahoma City
1908 OK 79 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Rooney v. Snow
63 P. 155 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Sharp v. City of Carthage
48 Mo. App. 26 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)