Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hollister v. Sherman 63 Cal. 38

← Cases

Hollister v. Sherman

63 Cal. 38 Court Cal. Decision date 1883-01-16 English

Contents

Majority

p. 38
[Department One.
January 16, 1883.]
W. W. HOLLISTER, Appellant, v. L. E. SHERMAN, Tax Collector, Respondent.

Headnote

Taxation—Begents State University—Property Exempt from Taxes — Assessment—Sale—Deed—Injunction.—All property administered by the regents of the State University is exempt from taxes, and a deed of the tax collector on a sale of property so administered under an assessment against the regents would be void on its face. No cloud up in the title would be created by the deed, and an injunction will not be granted to prevent the sale.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Santa Barbara.
The action was brought to enjoin the sale of certain land under an assessment for State and county taxes for the fiscal year 1881—82. The plaintiff1 ivas the owner of the land, but prior to the assessment he mortgaged it to the regents of the
p. 39
State University to secure the payment of a loan of fifty thousand dollars made by them from the funds appropriated to the support of the university. The land was assessed to the regents and valued at fifty thousand dollars, the aggregate amount of the taxes being one thousand dollars. The complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. The plaintiff declined to amend, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.
John B. Mhoon, for Appellant.
W C. Stratton, and J. H. Kincaid, for Respondent.

We cansee no difference as to ownership between property taken by the regents of the university “ by grant, gift, devise, or bequest” (Pol. Code, § 1415, sub.7), and' other property administered by them. If any, all such property is exempt from taxation. The mortgage to secure the money loaned by the regents to plaintiff was not, therefore, subject to taxation. As the mortgage was assessed to the regents of the university, the tax deed would show the assessment was void. The deed would cast no cloud upon plaintiff’s title, since in an action brought upon it by the purchaser the present plaintiff would not be called upon to introduce any evidence, but the purchaser must fail on his own showing. (Grimm v. O’Connell, 54 Cal. 521 .)

Judgment and orders affirmed.

Cases cited