Henne

Action to recover certain taxes claimed to have been illegally exacted. Plaintiff alleges ownership of certain real estate situated in the city of Los Angeles; that said property was assessed for the fiscal year 1898-99 as of the value of $96,530; that at the time of said assessment there was a mortgage resting upon said property, executed by plaintiff to the regents of the University of California, for the sum of $35,000, no part of which had been paid, and that the same remained unpaid on the first Monday of March, 1898; that no deduction or credit was made or given plaintiff upon the assessment-roll on account of said mortgage, and the assessor failed and refused to treat said mortgage as an interest in the property affected thereby, or to deduct the value of said mortgage security from the value of said property, but assessed the entire value thereof to plaintiff; that on July 23, 1898, plaintiff made a demand in writing upon the assessor that he correct said assessment by deducting from the value of said *371 property assessed to plaintiff, and affected by said mortgage, the value of said mortgage, alleged to be $35,000; that the assessor refused; that thereafter, on November…

I concur in the judgment solely upon the ground that the taxpayer is not subjected to the penalty of a so-called arbitrary assessment for failure to furnish to the assessor a list of his taxable property unless such list has first been demanded by the assessor. It does not appear in this case that such a list was demanded. I do not concur in the apparent intimation that, though such list has bee* demanded, the taxpayer could complain if he did not furnish a list which would show the mortgages to which the property is subject. If the list does not show the mortgages, in my opinion, it would not constitute such a list of his taxable property as is required. If the opinion can be understood as holding that only when the taxpayer has failed to return a list is the assessor entitled to value the property, or change values made *376 by the taxpayer, I also dissent from that view. In my opinion, it is always the duty of the assessor to value the property for himself, and that in all eases he not only may, but should, refuse to be bound by the valuations made by the taxpayer. I doubt the propriety of the term ‘ ‘ arbitrary assessment ’ ’: See People v. National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co.,…