Majority
p. 769[Sac. No. 1305. In Bank. October 1, 1906.] COUNTY OF SIERRA, Respondent, v. P. L. FLANIGAN, Appellant.
Headnote
License Fee—Action bt County—Ordinance Begulating Sheep Business—Sufficiency of Complaint—Default Judgment.—In an action by a county to recover a license fee for conducting the business of grazing, herding, and pasturing sheep and lambs, under a county ordinance regulating the business under the police power granted by the constitution and by section 3366 of the Political Code, where the judgment was by default, after a demurrer to the complaint was overruled and the complaint stated a sufficient cause of action under the rules of law applicable thereto, as laid down in County of Plumas v. Wheeler, ante, p. 758, the court properly overruled the demurrer to the complaint, and the judgment must be affirmed.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sierra County. Stanley A. Smith, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Campbell, Metson & Campbell, W. H. Metson, A. E. Cheney, and Thomas H. Breeze, for Appellant.
Frank R. Wehe, Solinsky & Wehe, and W. I. Redding, for Respondent.
This case was argued and submitted with County of Plumas v. Wheeler, just decided, ante, p. 758, [ 87 Pac. 909 ], and involves the validity of an ordinance of Sierra County, substantially similar to the ordinance bf Plumas
p. 770
County, considered -in the Wheeler ease. Here a general demurrer to the county’s complaint setting forth the ordinance and seeking to recover license fees under it, was overruled, with leave to the defendant to answer. Upon his default for failure to answer within the time allowed, plaintiff had judgment according to the prayer of its complaint. Defendant appeals.
For the reasons stated in County of Plumas v. Wheeler, ante, p. 758, the complaint stated a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shaw, J., Angellotti, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.