Hollister v. Sherman

California Supreme Court

Hollister v. Sherman

63 Cal. 38, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 346

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 38 (Hollister v. Sherman) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 38, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollister-v-sherman-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack