From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Frisbie

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1866
31 Cal. 146 (Cal. 1866)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Napa County.

         The defendant answered without interposing a demurrer. When the case was called for trial, plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Court sustained the motion. Defendant appealed.

         COUNSEL:

         Rayle & Pendegast, for Appellants, argued that the complaint averred a taxation of defendant's claim to the possession of the land, and that a mere claim to the possession of land was not liable to taxation.

         J. G. McCullough, Attorney-General, for the People, argued that the complaint averred that defendant's claim to and possession of the land was taxed, and that claims and possessions of occupants of public lands were both property for the purposes of taxation within the meaning of the Revenue Act; and cited People v. Shearer , 30 Cal. 645.


         JUDGES: Shafter, J. Mr. Chief Justice Currey did not express any opinion.

         OPINION

          SHAFTER, Judge

         This is an action for the recovery of delinquent taxes assessed upon real estate. The complaint is against both person and property. The answer alleges, by way of avoidance, that the lands described in the complaint are public lands of the United States. Judgment was entered for the people upon the pleadings, and the appeal is from the judgment.

         There are two questions: One as to the sufficiency of the complaint, the other as to the sufficiency of the avoidance, in the event the complaint should turn out to be sufficient.

         The lands are described in the complaint by metes and bounds, and the assessment is alleged to have been made upon " Frisbie's claim to and possession thereof, and upon the improvements upon such real estate." The objection taken to the complaint is, that the assessment appears to have been put upon a mere claim to the possession of the land. This objection proceeds upon a mistake of fact--for, by the averment, the assessment was upon the " claim and possession." Had the assessment, however, been upon the claim alone, it would have sufficed. The provision of the Revenue Act of 1861 (Acts 1861, Sec. 5, p. 421,) is as follows: " The term real estate, whenever used in this Act, shall be deemed and taken to mean and include, and it is hereby declared to mean and include, the ownership of or claim to, or possession of, or right of possession to any land," etc.

         The term " claim," as used in this provision, means something more than a mere assertion by the party assessed that he owns, or is entitled to possess the lands described in the list. While the word carries with it the idea of such assertion, it involves also the idea of an actual possession of the land claimed. We therefore consider not only that the assessment declared on was based upon a subject matter liable to taxation under the Act of 1861, but of a subject matter, also, comprehended by the term " property," as used in the thirteenth section of the Eleventh Article of the Constitution.

         The insufficiency of the answer as an avoidance of the case made in the complaint, is settled by People v. Shearer , 30 Cal. 645.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Frisbie

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1866
31 Cal. 146 (Cal. 1866)
Case details for

People v. Frisbie

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE v. JOHN B. FRISBIE

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1866

Citations

31 Cal. 146 (Cal. 1866)

Citing Cases

State v. C. P. R. R. Co.

Bearing in mind that it is stipulated that the lands now under consideration are surveyed, and under the…

State v. C. P. R. R. Co.

A constructive possession can not exist in the absence of title. ( Hersee v. Porter, 100 N. Y. 403; Hale…