Martin v. Aston

Decided January 20, 1882

California Supreme Court · decided 1882-01-20

Logan, J. Action of replevin. The property was taken by the defendant, who was Assessor of Santa Cruz County, for road property tax, under Sections 3820 and 3821 of the Political Code. The twelfth finding, referred to in the argument of appellant’s counsel, was as follows: “ Twelfth.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-01-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2023

2 state decisions

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 →

The Court:

¶1Under the Charter of the City of Santa Cruz (Stat. 1875-*691876, p. 189, etc.), the Common Council of the city has power to lay out and improve streets within the city, and to raise money therefor by assessment and taxation. The Court below found that all the streets and alleys within the city limits are wholly maintained, improved, and kept in repair by the city. Therefore, according to Section 2664, Political Code, the appellant had no authority to collect taxes for road purposes from inhabitants of or property within the city.

¶2Judgment affirmed.