Spring Valley Water Co. v. City & County of San Francisco

(after stating the facts as above). [ 1 ] It is urged that there was no legal authority for the assessments, or for making them in the manner in which they were made. Reliance *731 is placed by the respondent upon section 3647 of the Political Code of California, under which it is claimed the assessments were regularly aucl rightfully made, which reads as follows:

The question turns largely upon whether the banks in which the moneys were directed to be deposited were receivers within the meaning of the section of the statute just quoted. The Supreme Court of the United States has defined a receiver thus:

In Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chapman, 208 U. S. 360, 371 , 28 Sup. Ct. 406, 409, 52 L. Ed. 528 , 13 Ann. Cas. 1155, the court continues:

A comprehensive definition is to he found in 34 Cyc. 15:

Now, the direction of the statute, so far as it could have application here, is that money in litigation in possession of a court must be assessed to the receiver. The money impounded constitutes the very essence of the controversy. It is the very thing about which the parties are not agreed respecting title and right of possession; hence the suit, and lienee the litigation to determine…