Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. County of San Diego

44 P. 571, 112 Cal. 314, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 682
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 7, 1896
DocketNo. 19407
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 44 P. 571 (Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. County of San Diego) 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 Mutual Life Insurance v. County of San Diego, 44 P. 571, 112 Cal. 314, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 682 (Cal. 1896).

Opinion

The Court.

A re-examination of the questions presented in this case serves but to confirm the reasoning and conclusion reached in the Department opinion. The judgment is reversed, and the trial court directed to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

Beatty, C. J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.

[315]*315The following is the opinion above referred to, rendered in Department One, on the 21st of August, 1895:

Britt, C.

Action brought professedly under section 3819, added to the Political Code in 1893 (Stats. 1893, p. 32), for the recovery of alleged illegal taxes paid by plaintiff, under protest, to the tax-collector of the defendant county. It is stated in the complaint that the taxes complained of were levied by the board of supervisors of the county " as and for a special school tax for the city of San Diego school district.” The illegality alleged is that the question whether such tax should be raised was not submitted to a vote of the electors of the district, as required by sections 1830-35 of the Political Code. Defendant demurred to the complaint upon the special ground, among others, that the taxes paid by plaintiff “ are neither county or state taxes, nor any taxes under the control of the defendant.” The court overruled the demurrer, and defendant answered, alleging, with other matters, that the levy was made pursuant to a certain judgment obtained by said school district which became final on appeal to this court. (San Diego School Dist. v. Supervisors, 97 Cal. 438.) The court sustained a demurrer to the answer and rendered judgment for plaintiff; we need not inquire whether the answer stated a defense.

The funds of the school district are not subject to the control of the county so as to allow a reimbursement of the county for the amount of the judgment, if it should be paid (Const., art. XI, sec. 16; Pol. Code, sec. 1837); and if said section 3819 of the Political Code admits of a construction which would uphold an action of this character, its constitutionality in that particular would admit of debate, for the credit of a county cannot be pledged for the payment of the liabilities of municipal or other corporations. (Const., art. IV, sec. 31.) But it was held in Elberg v. San Luis Obispo County, decided in Department Two of this court, August 3, 1895,

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

Related

Santa Barbara County Water Agency v. All Persons & Parties
306 P.2d 875 (California Supreme Court, 1957)
Credit Bureau of San Diego, Inc. v. Getty
142 P.2d 105 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
112 P.2d 10 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Goodall v. Brite
54 P.2d 510 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Pomona City School District v. Payne
50 P.2d 822 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Spencer v. City of Los Angeles
179 P. 163 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Gill v. City of Oakland
57 P. 150 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Corbett v. Widber
55 P. 764 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Davis v. City & County of San Francisco
46 P. 863 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Easterbrook v. City & County of San Francisco
44 P. 800 (California Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 P. 571, 112 Cal. 314, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-mutual-life-insurance-v-county-of-san-diego-cal-1896.