Lahman

Lahman v. Hatch

Good Law
124 Cal. 1·1899 Cal. LEXIS 927·56 P. 621
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 9, 1899L. A. No. 556California2,080 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pringle, J.

Appeal from judgment entered after demurrer to complaint sustained. Action brought to restrain the respondent, as tax collector of the Escondido Irrigation District, from selling lands of the appellants for taxes imposed by the directors of the district under the act entitled, “An act to provide for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition or construction thereby of works for the irrigation of lands embraced within such districts, and also to provide for the distribution of water for irrigation purposes.” Approved March 31, 1897 (page 254).

The grounds of'demurrer to the complaint are: 1. That complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2. That the action is barred by the limitation established by the act in question. In answer to the point that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the appellants claim that the taxes, the collection of which they seek to restrain, are illegal for two reasons—for conduct of the assessor, and for conduct of the hoard of equalization.

1. For conduct of the assessor: Section 37 provides that on or before the first Monday in…

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.