Corbett

This appeal is from a judgment awarding to the plaintiffs a writ of mandate against the treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco.

The assessor of the city and county of San Francisco is required to collect taxes upon personal property unsecured by real estate some months in advance of the fixing of the rate by the supervisors. He is, therefore, directed by law to collect at the rate established for the preceding year. These moneys he turns over to the treasurer. In the event that the taxes so collected for the current year shall exceed the amount finally determined to he due, the excess “must be repaid by the county treasurer to the person from whom the collection is made, or to *155 his assignee, on demand therefor.” (Pol. Code, secs. 3640, 3714, 3820-30.)

It is admitted that there was an excess of forty dollars and five cents in the treasury paid by plaintiffs’ assignors in accordance with these laws. Plaintiffs made oral demand upon the treasurer for the payment back to them of the money, and upon his refusal applied for and obtained a writ of mandate.

In support of this appeal reliance is had upon the provisions of the consolidation act, section 84 of which…

I concur in the judgment. I think the money while in the treasury does constitute a part of the county funds. A special method is provided for the payment of this class of demands, which relieves the claimant front the delay, expense, and trouble of the usual mode. If the taxpayer does not call for it, the treasurer—in my opinion—must account therefor to the county and cannot retain it. The provision that such money shall not be distributed to the state means only that the county shall retain it and be liable to the taxpayer therefor.