Latimer

This is a proceeding in certiorari to review an order made by the respondent, discharging and dissolving an attachment against the person of E. L. Bickford issued in a contempt proceeding.

On August 7, 1909, the chairman of the board of supervisors of the county of Napa made and filed with the clerk of the superior court of said county, and presented to the Honorable H. T. Gesford, the judge of said superior court, a verified certificate of facts. That certificate showed that on August 5, 1909, the board of supervisors of said county, sitting as a board of equalization, had before it for consideration and action the matter of directing the assessor of said county to assess to one H. A. Crawford, a resident of said county, taxable property owned by said Crawford at 12 o’clock meridian on the first Monday in March, 1909, which had escaped taxation; that previously, and on the sixteenth day of July, 1909, the clerk of the said board of supervisors, upon the order of said board, sitting as a board of equalization, had notified the said Crawford by letter, postpaid, and deposited in the post-office at Napa, which was his place of residence, that said board would, on July 22, 1909,…

I agree with all that is said in the foregoing opinion by the court, except the discussion and conclusion to the effect that the order erroneously made by the superior court cannot be annulled on certiorari. ‘ The superior court was not without jurisdiction, for it still retained power to punish the party for the contempt by imposing a fine or imprisonment. It did not exercise its jurisdiction by deciding that Bickford should not, under the facts charged, be punished. It dismissed the proceeding solely because it decided that it had no jurisdiction to impose any punishment, no power to act at all in the matter. The court, by the order dismissing the proceeding, erroneously divested itself of further jurisdiction thereof. “Where such is the case, the writ of certiorari is a proper proceeding to annul the order.” (Hall v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 550 , [ 12 Pac. 672 ]; Levy v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. 292 , [ 5 Pac. 353 ; Hall v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. 25 , [ 8 Pac. 509 ]; Carlson v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 631 , [ 11 Pac. 788 ].) The entire proceeding before the board of supervisors and the ancillary proceeding in the superior court was at the behest of the state, and they were had…

I concur in the judgment.

A person who refuses to answer a question which a majority of the board of equalization decides to be proper and pertinent, as declared by section 4068 of the Political Code, “shall he deemed in contempt,” whatever that may mean. Apparently he is in contempt of the authority of that board, but they have no power to punish him for the contempt. All that they can do is to report his contumacy to the superior court and cause his arrest and arraignment before that tribunal. When so arraigned he has committed no contempt of court, and it is difficult to see how he can do so in connection with the cause-of his arrest, unless, after the court shall have decided that the question is one he ought to answer and ordered him to answer, he still refuses. He is then, and for the first time, guilty of a contempt of court, for which the court may punish him by fine and imprisonment, and may keep him in prison until he does answer, or until the adjournment of the board puts it out of his power to answer. This in my opinion is the meaning and whole scope of the provisions of sections 4068 and 4069 of the Political Code, which, owing to the fact that the board of…

I concur with the views expressed in the foregoing dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Shaw. As to the prevailing opinion, while I am satisfied that from the undisputed certification of facts Bickford was guilty of contempt of the authority of the board of supervisors meeting as a board of equalization, I cannot agree with the view announced therein that there is no party beneficially interested in this proceeding who is entitled to have the order of the court annulled on certiorari.

The constitution—article XIII, section 1—requires all property not exempt from taxation to be taxed in proportion to its value and under section 3672 of the Political Code the board of supervisors meeting as a board of equalization is invested with the power and it is made its duty to carry this constitutional mandate into effect. It is directed by said section 3672 to “equalize the assessment of property in the county,” and unless all property is assessed necessarily the assessment is not equal and the constitutional mandate that all property be taxed is not carried into effect. The board, as an agency of the state, was proceeding to carry out this duty under the provisions of the law authorizing it…

I concur in the foregoing opinion of Justice Lorigan.