Hollister v. Sherman
W. W. HOLLISTER v. L. E. SHERMAN, Tax Collector
- Area
- civil
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
Per Curiam.
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Spinetti v. Brignardello No. 7,008 · 1880-07-01
Cited by
- Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp. No. B239014 · 2013-04-03
- Connolly v. County of Orange S016686 · 1992-02-27
- Webster v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Cal. S.F. No. 5874. · 1912-09-20
- Henne v. Los Angeles County L. A. No. 760 · 1899-12-29
- People ex rel. Johnson v. Board of Supervisors No. 12786 · 1888-09-27
- Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Shipman No. 9047 · 1886-05-25