People v. Hollister

47 Cal. 408
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1874
DocketNo. 3,501
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 47 Cal. 408 (People v. Hollister) 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
People v. Hollister, 47 Cal. 408 (Cal. 1874).

Opinion

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

.Action to recover delinquent taxes. In the column of the assessment roll, under the head of “Description of property,” are the following entries: “3,166 acres of land known as the Chorro Eancho, at $4—$12,664; 4,389 acres of land, part of the San Luisito Eancho, at $4—$17,556; 900 acres of land, part of Corral de Piedra Eancho, at $4—S3,~ 600; improvements $1,200.” In the column headed “ Value of land ” is the entry, $33,320. The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for the taxes upon the first two tracts of land, at the valuation of $12,664 for the first tract and $17,-556 for the second tract. Both parties have appealed from the judgment. In People v. Sierra Buttes, 39 Cal. 511, the assessment roll contains, in the column headed “Description of property,” an entry “Mining implements, cars, tools, iron and steel and supplies, $2,000;” then a description of a ditch and flume, followed by the figures, $16,000; then a description of two quartz mills, followed by the figures $22,-000. In the column headed “Value of personal property” there was the entry of the figures $40,000. It was held that the different parcels of personal property should have been separately valued; that the figures following those several parcels could not be taken at their valuation, because the statute required the values to be entered in the column provided for that purpose; and that therefore the assessment of those parcels of property was void. The doctrine of that case is decisive of the question presented by the record now before us.

Mr. Justice Crockett dissented.

Mr. Justice McKikstry did not express an opinion.

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

Related

Sawyer v. Berkeley Securities Co.
279 P. 217 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Peers v. Reed
48 P. 897 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1897)
Emeric v. Alvarado
27 P. 356 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
State v. Central Pacific Railroad
21 Nev. 94 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)
State v. C. P. R. R. Co.
25 P. 442 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)
Young v. Joslin
13 R.I. 675 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Cal. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollister-cal-1874.