Merrill v. Austin
J. C. MERRILL, LESLIE C. HANKS, and CHAS. R. MERRILL v. ALEX. AUSTIN, Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco
- Area
- delinquency
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
*380By the Court :
The payment under protest was -made on the 2nd day of January, 1873, and before the tax (which was on personal property alone) was returned delinquent. Until the tax became delinquent, the plaintiff was not under such legal coercion as compelled the payment in order to save the collection of the amount by sale of his real property or otherwise. The payment was a voluntary payment, because the defendant was not then in a position to enforce the collection by a sale of plaintiff’s property. (Williams v. Corcoran, 46 Cal. 556; Bank of Woodland v. Webber, 52 Cal. 73, and other cases.)
Judgment and order reversed, as of the day of the submission of the cause. Kemittitur forthwith.
Cites, in this corpus
- Bank of Woodland v. Webber No. 5310 · 1877-07-01
- Williams v. Corcoran No. 3,854 · 1873-07-01
Cited by
- Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court S176943 · 2011-06-06
- Southern Service Co. v. County of Los Angeles L. A. 16598 · 1940-01-02