Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 229

People v. Hagar

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

The Act of March 28, 1868, entitled an Act to provide for the management and sale of lands belonging to the State, provides that whenever an unreclaimed body of swamp and overflowed land is susceptible of one mode of reclamation, that upon a petition, signed by a majority of acres, the Board of Supervisors may form the same into a district, and that such majority may then adopt by-laws and elect a Board of Trustees to manage the reclamation, which Board shall employ…

Relies on People v. Coghill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1896

7 state decisions

30187418801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

¶1The Court finds that the Commissioners “did not jointly view and assess the land upon which the tax in suit was assessed; but made their return upon their assessment roll, that they had jointly viewed and assessed it.” In People v. Coghill (47 Cal. 361), we held that a failure by the Commissioners to jointly view and assess the land was fatal to the assessment, and we adhere to that opinion.

¶2It is contended that the return by the Commissioners on the assessment roll, that they had jointly viewed and assessed the land, is conclusive on that point, in a collateral action, and that all proof to the contrary should have been disregarded. Whatever may have been the rule, if the statute had required the Commissioners to state in their certificate to the assessment roll that they had jointly viewed and assessed the land, it is clear that the certificate can have no such conclusive effect, unless it was incumbent on the Commissioners, to certify that they acted jointly in viewing and assessing the land. But as the statute does not require them to state that fact in the certificate, their having voluntarily done so, was a superfluous act; and instead of being conclusive of the fact that they acted jointly, was not even prima facie evidence of it.

¶3Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

¶4Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

/49/cal/229 · .json · Public domain