Pettit

I concur in the judgment and in the foregoing opinion. The money which was the subject of the double assessment for the year 1888-89 did not hear its share of taxation for the preceding year. If the owner had waived the invalidity of its assessment for the fiscal year 1887-88, and had paid upon such assessment the tax levied for that year, a different question would have been presented.

This was an action to recover delinquent taxes. The property taxed was a sum of money depos *500 ited with the defendant in his official capacity, under an order of the superior court, in a pending case. During the fiscal year 1887-88, the defendant reported the deposit to the assessor, who, however, did not assess it to him, but (probably acting under a mistaken view of the law) assessed it to the plaintiffs in the suit. The tax was not paid. In the following year the property was assessed to the defendant. But upon the theory that it had “ escaped assessment ” the preceding year, the amount of the assessment was doubled. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. The points made relate to the validity of the assessment.

1. In doubling the assessment, the assessor acted under a provision of the Political Code which is as follows:—

The validity of this provision was affirmed in Biddle v. Oaks, 59 Cal. 95 , in which case the court said that the legislature had power to impose a penalty for neglect to have an assessment made. In the ease before us, there was no such neglect, because the defendant reported the property to the assessor. But we do not…