From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

Supreme Court of California
Aug 16, 1935
4 Cal.2d 222 (Cal. 1935)

Opinion

Docket No. S.F. 15423.

August 16, 1935.

PROCEEDING in Mandamus to compel the levy of a tax to pay principal and interest on bonds of an improvement district. Writ granted.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Gibson, Dunn Crutcher and Woodward M. Taylor for Petitioner.

Everett W. Mattoon, County Counsel, and J.H. O'Connor, Assistant County Counsel, for Respondents.


This is a petition for a writ of mandate to compel respondents to transfer money from the county treasury to the bond redemption fund to meet unpaid instalments of principal and interest on improvement bonds. The facts and issues in this proceeding are substantially similar to those presented in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, L.A. No. 15142 ( ante, p. 220 [ 48 P.2d 34]), and Sawyer v. County of San Luis Obispo, L.A. No. 15178 ( post, p. 776 [ 48 P.2d 35]), this day decided The only difference is that in the instant case a special tax was actually levied to meet the delinquency, but subsequently the board of supervisors canceled the appropriation. [1] The respondent county herein argues that unless there are separate sales for delinquencies in assessments and general taxes, its liability does not exist. As we pointed out in Southern California Roads Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo, supra, the mandatory duty to levy the special tax is not affected by the procedure followed in sales for delinquencies, and it is accordingly improper in this proceeding to attempt to set forth the construction of the statutory provisions governing such sales.

Let a writ of mandate issue as prayed.

Seawell, J., Waste, C.J., Preston, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.


Summaries of

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

Supreme Court of California
Aug 16, 1935
4 Cal.2d 222 (Cal. 1935)
Case details for

Griffith Co. v. County of Los Angeles

Case Details

Full title:GRIFFITH COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 16, 1935

Citations

4 Cal.2d 222 (Cal. 1935)
48 P.2d 35

Citing Cases

Thompson v. City of Compton

[1] On the authority of that case it must be held that respondents are in no position to raise the question…

Kerr G. Mfg. Corp. v. San Buenaventura

That case settled the interpretation of sections 12 and 16a of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 to the effect…