Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin

California Supreme Court

Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin

128 P. 20, 164 Cal. 154, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 322

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 13, 1912

DocketL.A. No. 3345.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 P. 20 (Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin) 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

Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin, 128 P. 20, 164 Cal. 154, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 322 (Cal. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

The city assessor of Los Angeles did not file any protest against the taxation of the property in question as operative property of the Pacific Electric Railway Company until more than thirty days after he had received the copy of the company's report which the law requires to be served upon him. The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional. A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make any order disposing of the protest is, therefore, not a breach of duty and mandamus will not lie to compel *Page 156 the entry of such order. Its act placing such property on the roll as operative property is as valid as if the belated protest had not been filed.

For these reasons the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Rehearing denied.

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

The city assessor of Los Angeles did not file any protest against the taxation of the property in question as operative property of the Pacific Electric Railway Company until more than thirty days after he had received the copy of the company's report which the law requires to be served upon him. The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional. A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make any order disposing of the protest is, therefore, not a breach of duty and mandamus will not lie to compel *Page 156 the entry of such order. Its act placing such property on the roll as operative property is as valid as if the belated protest had not been filed.

For these reasons the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 P. 20, 164 Cal. 154, 1912 Cal. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-electric-ry-co-v-rolkin-cal-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack