Grotefend v. Ultz

53 Cal. 666
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1879
DocketNo. 6131
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 53 Cal. 666 (Grotefend v. Ultz) 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
Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666 (Cal. 1879).

Opinion

By the Court :

The Political Code declares (sec. 3628): “ The Assessor must ascertain the names of all taxable persons and all property in his county subject to taxation,” and requires (sec. 3650) that officer to prepare an assessment book, in which must be specified, “ in separate columns, under the appropriate heading, first the name of the person to whom the property is assessed. * * * * By secs. 3635 and 3636 it is provided that “if the owner or claimant of any property is unknown,” the property must be assessed “ to unknown owners.”

The first duty of the Assessor under these provisions is to ascertain the name of the owner of each piece or parcel of [667]*667property, and to assess it to him; his second—if he fails to ascertain the name of the owner—is to assess it to “ unknown owners.” It follows that the assessment to “D. B. Matlock and all owners and claimants known or unknown,” was void. This view is upheld by Kelsey v. Abbott, 18 Cal. 609 ; Smith v. Davis, 30 Cal. 537; Blatner v. Davis, 32 Cal. 328, and by other decisions of this Court.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

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

Related

Robinson v. Scott
158 P. 268 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Stitt v. Stringham
105 P. 252 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1909)
Wright v. Fox
89 P. 832 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Lewis v. Blackburn
69 P. 1024 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)
State v. Ernst & Esser
65 P. 7 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1901)
Houser & Haines Manufacturing Co. v. Hargrove
59 P. 947 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Z. Russ & Sons Co. v. Crichton
49 P. 1043 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Gwynn v. Dierssen
36 P. 103 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Jatunn v. O'Brien
26 P. 635 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
City of San Luis Obispo v. Pettit
25 P. 694 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Greenwood v. Adams
21 P. 1134 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Brady v. Dowden
59 Cal. 51 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
Hearst v. Egglestone
55 Cal. 365 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Grimm v. O'Connell
54 Cal. 522 (California Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Cal. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grotefend-v-ultz-cal-1879.