Riley

City of Los Angeles v. Riley

Good Law
1936 Cal. LEXIS 563·6 Cal. 2d 621·59 P.2d 137
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 29, 1936S. F. 15672California1,057 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curtis, J.

The City of Los Angeles, by this proceeding in mandamus, seeks to compel respondent state officials to transfer to the city certain funds collected under the terms of Statutes of 1935, page 1312, and now on deposit in the state treasury to the credit of the Motor Vehicle License Fee Fund, as expressly provided in section 9 (b) of the above-mentioned act. Respondents have refused to make such transfer until the validity of said section of said act has been established and have made their return to the petition by way of general demurrer.

The constitutionality of the act, generally, has been upheld in Ingels v. Riley, 5 Cal. (2d) 154 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 939 ], In that case, it was also held that the tax imposed by the act is not a property tax but 1 ‘ an excise tax, for revenue purposes, imposed upon the privilege of using the highways for the purpose of operating thereon registered motor vehicles”. (5 Cal. (2d) 154 [ 53 Pac. (2d) 939 ].)

The act as a whole provides for the imposition of a privilege tax on owners of registered motor vehicles and the collection of the tax by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. By the first section 9 of the act (there are three sections 9 in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.