- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz Railroad Co.
Case Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Cruz. The plaintiff filed a petition that the case be heard in Bank (in Bank) following a prior departmental disposition. The petition relied principally upon the decision in City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker (16 Cal. 120). The Court considered the petition in Bank and ultimately denied it. Counsel of record included W. D. Storey for the appellant and Charles B. Younger for the respondents. The opinion was delivered by Judge McKinstry, with Judges McKee and Ross concurring.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should grant the plaintiff's petition to have the case heard in Bank (i.e., rehearing in Bank).
- Whether the decision in City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker controls the disposition of the petition or otherwise supports the plaintiff's request to be heard in Bank.
- Whether, under the particular reincorporation act for the city of Santa Cruz and the complaint as filed, an ordinance authorizing collection of license taxes by ordinary action before a justice of the peace has been sufficiently pleaded so as to invoke the rule applied in the Sacramento case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff's petition sought hearing in Bank relying on City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker as controlling precedent.
- Counsel asserted that the Justices' Court in Santa Cruz, under the act incorporating the plaintiff, had police-court powers and jurisdiction to collect license taxes in ordinary civil actions (citing various statutes and the Sacramento decision in support).
- It was argued that the city had authority under its charter and other laws to require payment of a license and to provide for collection (references to statutory provisions and prior judicial treatment were included in the appellant's submission).
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments for the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker, 16 Cal. 120 | Illustrates a judgment that turned on a city's charter power "to levy taxes and to cause the same to be collected," and on an ordinance enacted under that power; used to support that a license tax could be collected by ordinary suit in a justice's court under that charter. | The Court examined the report of that case and distinguished it: the Sacramento charter used broader language than the reincorporation act for Santa Cruz. The Court concluded the Sacramento case did not control here because the Santa Cruz act is more restricted and, critically, the complaint in this case does not allege or refer to an ordinance authorizing collection. |
| Brown v. Rice, 52 Cal. 489 | Referenced as authority bearing on the question of jurisdiction of the appellate courts in this context. | Used in Department No. 1's disposition (cited in the opinion) to support the view that neither this Court nor the District Court have jurisdiction in the matter. The opinion references this authority in describing the jurisdictional posture. |
| Cornett v. Bishop, 39 Cal. 319 | Referenced as authority bearing on the question of jurisdiction of the appellate courts in this context. | Like Brown v. Rice, cited to support the statement that neither this Court nor the District Court have jurisdiction in this case; relied on in the earlier departmental disposition referenced by the Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the plaintiff's petition to be heard in Bank and focused on the plaintiff's reliance on City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker. The Court examined that decision and determined it turned on the broad power granted by Sacramento's charter "to levy taxes and to cause the same to be collected," and an ordinance enacted pursuant to that power. By contrast, the "act to reincorporate the city of Santa Cruz" contains more limited language: Section 13 makes it the common council's duty to provide "by ordinance" for levying and collecting city taxes and to be governed by State laws on levying and collection "so far as applicable."
The Court reasoned that, even if the common council could, by ordinance, provide for collection of licenses in an ordinary action before a justice of the peace, the present complaint fails to allege or refer to any such ordinance. Because the complaint does not recite the ordinanceal basis for collection, the Sacramento decision could not be invoked to justify hearing the case in Bank on the basis asserted.
The opinion further notes that nothing in the Department No. 1 opinion indicates any doubt about the legislature's power to authorize city councils to specify modes of collection or the city council's power to adopt ordinances when authorized; however, the Court emphasized that those broader questions are not presented by this case as pleaded. On that basis, the Court denied the petition to hear the case in Bank.
Holding and Implications
DENIAL OF PETITION TO HEAR IN BANK.
Holding: The Court denied the plaintiff's petition that the case be heard in Bank. The Court distinguished City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker and concluded the Sacramento precedent did not control because the Santa Cruz reincorporation act is more restricted and the complaint did not allege an ordinance authorizing collection of license taxes.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the petition for rehearing in Bank was denied and the case will not be heard in Bank on the grounds presented. The Court explicitly refrained from deciding broader questions about legislative authority to authorize city councils to prescribe modes of collection or the power of city councils to enact ordinances for collection when authorized; those issues were not decided and no new broad precedent was established by this opinion.
Neither this Court nor the District Court have jurisdiction herein. (Brown v. Rice , 52 Cal. 489; Cornett v. Bishop , 39 id. 319.)
JUDGES: McKinstry, J. McKee, J., and Ross, J., concurred.
OPINION
McKINSTRY, Judge
In Bank (on petition for rehearing).
By the Court:
In the petition that this case be heard in Bank, plaintiff relies upon City and County of Sacramento v. Charles Crocker , 16 Cal. 120. An examination of the report of that case, however, shows that the judgment turned upon the power given the corporation by its charter " to levy taxes and to cause the same to be collected," and an ordinance passed under and by virtue of that power. (See opinion and brief of counsel for appellant.) The language of the " act to reincorporate the city of Santa Cruz" is more restricted than that employed in the charter of Sacramento. The thirteenth section of that act reads: " The common council has power, and it is hereby made their duty to provide by ordinance, for the levying and collecting of all city taxes, and in so doing shall be governed by the State laws in reference to the levying and collection of State and county taxes, so far as applicable," etc. Assuming, but in view of other sections of the act not deciding, that the common council might, by ordinance, provide for the collection of licenses in an ordinary action brought before a justice of the peace, the complaint does not recite nor refer to any such ordinance.
There is nothing in the opinion filed in Department No. 1 which can be construed as indicating a doubt as to the power of the legislature to authorize a city council to provide the mode by which licenses may be collected, or as to the power of a city council, when thus authorized, to provide by ordinance for the collection of license taxes by civil actions brought by the city in a municipal court, or even in another court. Whatever the true rule with reference to those matters, no such question is involved in the present case.
Petition denied.
Alert