Hollister v. Sherman

63 Cal. 38, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 346
California Supreme Court·Decided January 16, 1883·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We cansee no difference as to ownership between property taken by the regents of the university “ by grant, gift, devise, or bequest” (Pol. Code, § 1415, sub.7), and' other property administered by them. If any, all such property is exempt from taxation. The mortgage to secure the money loaned by the regents to plaintiff was not, therefore, subject to taxation. As the mortgage was assessed to the regents of the university, the tax deed would show the assessment was void. The deed would cast no cloud upon plaintiff’s title, since in an action brought upon it by the purchaser the present plaintiff would not be called upon to introduce any evidence, but the purchaser must fail on his own showing. (Grimm v. O’Connell, 54 Cal. 521.)

Judgment and orders affirmed.

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

Hollister v. Sherman, 63 Cal. 38, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 346 (Cal. 1883).

63 Cal. 38 (Hollister v. Sherman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp.
215 Cal. App. 4th 82 (California Court of Appeal, 2013)
Connolly v. County of Orange
824 P.2d 1105 (California Supreme Court, 1992)
Webster v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Cal.
126 P. 974 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Henne v. Los Angeles County
59 P. 780 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
People ex rel. Johnson v. Board of Supervisors
19 P. 257 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Shipman
11 P. 343 (California Supreme Court, 1886)