Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

W. W. HOLLISTER, APPELLANT, v. L. E. SHERMAN, TAX COLLECTOR, RESPONDENT

         OPINION

         PER CURIAM.

         We can see 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Hollister v. Sherman
(Jan 16, 1883)