Woodruff v. Perry

Decided August 25, 1894

California Supreme Court · decided 1894-08-25

This action was brought by the owners of lands affected by an assessment levied by the Otay Irrigation District, for expenses of organization, including the salaries of officers and employees, to have the assessment declared illegal and void, and to enjoin the enforcement of its collection, upon the ground that the assessment was levied without submission to a vote of the electors of the district.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1916

2 district · 1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Inasmuch as the -invalidity of such assessment would not appear upon the face of the deed to be given the purchaser at the sale, on account of the tax levied by such assessment becoming delinquent, the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction given by the judgment appealed from.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Nevada-California Power Co. v. Hamilton

Relies on Pixley v. Huggins · Tregea v. Owens · Burr v. Hunt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-08-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

De Haven, J.

¶1The assessment referred to in the complaint not having been authorized by a vote of the electors of the Otay Irrigation District, was illegal under the rule announced in the case of Tregea v. Owens, 94 Cal. 317; and inasmuch as the invalidity of such assessment would not appear upon the face of the deed given to the purchaser at the sale made for the purpose of collecting the delinquent tax levied by such assessment, the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction given by the judgment appealed from. (Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127; Burr v. Hunt, 18 Cal. 303.)

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.