gno.law

Pacific Electric Ry. Co. v. Rolkin

California Supreme Court · L.A. No. 3345. · 1912-11-13 · Published · 128 P. 20 · 164 Cal. 154 · 1912 Cal. LEXIS 322

Pacific Electric Railway Company v. Edward Rolkin, as Members of the State Board of Equalization of the State of California

Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

The city assessor of Los Angeles did not file any protest against the taxation of the property in question as operative property of the Pacific Electric Railway Company until more than thirty days after he had received the copy of the company's report which the law requires to be served upon him. The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional. A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make any order disposing of the protest is, therefore, not a breach of duty and mandamus will not lie to compel *Page 156 the entry of such order. Its act placing such property on the roll as operative property is as valid as if the belated protest had not been filed.

For these reasons the application for a writ of mandate is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Cited by