Opinion of the Court-Crockett, J.
to reduce the valuation, on the application of the railroad company, is in no sense an adjudication that it ought not to be raised. If it be admitted that on that application the (672) Board had the power to raise the valuation, instead of reducing it, this would lend no support to the proposition that the Board could not afterwards entertain an application to raise it. The proceeding would include no element of res judicata; and if it did, we are not prepared to say that a Board of Equalization is necessarily limited to one application, either to reduce or raise the valuation.
ACCOUNTS.
See PLEADING, 14.
See ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
See PARTIES TO ACTIONS, 1.
1. COURT MAY CORRECT ERRORS AFTER THE TERM.-The Court has power to
correct clerical errors and misprisions, even after the expiration of the
term. Estate of Schroeder, 305.
See JUDGMENTS, 4; PLEADINGS, 21.
1. FROM ORDER.-An appeal does not lie from an order denying a continu-
ance. Haraszthy v. Horton, 545.
2. BY A BANKRUPT.-The bankruptcy of a party against whom a judgment
has been rendered, though adjudicated before the taking of the appeal,
will not prevent the prosecution of an appeal in his name. The appeal
may be prosecuted in the name of the bankrupt, or in the name of his
asssignee. O'Neil v. Dougherty, 575.
3. TAKING SECOND.--When an attempted appeal is ineffectual from failure to
serve the notice at the proper time, a new appeal may be taken. Colum-
bet v. Pacheco, 650.
4. TAKING AN. The filing of the notice of appeal, filing of the undertaking,
and service of the notice, must be effected on the same day. The
notice may be served personally, or in the other modes provided in the '
Code. Id.
5. IDEM-UNDERTAKING.-The service of a notice of appeal operates a notice
of the filing of the undertaking. Id.
See ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, 1; ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS, 26.
1. OF SWAMP LANDS.-Lands, the title to which is vested in the State, under
the Act of Congress donating the swamp lands to the States, are not lia-
ble to the assessment in the City and County of San Francisco, levied
under the order of the Board of Supervisors, called Order Eight Hun-
dred, which assessment was made to raise a fund to pay the possessors of
outside lands dedicated to public use, the value of the lands so dedicated.
Mason v. Austin, 385.
2. VOID.-An assessment for widening a street, void on its face, creates no
lien on the property, and a purchaser at the sale does not acquire even a
color of title which will operate as a cloud on the true title. Bucknall
v. Story, 589.
3. PAYMENT OF MONEY LEVIED.-If property is assessed for widening of a
street, not to the true owner, but to a stranger, and the owner pays the
money to prevent a sale by the Tax Collector, he will be deemed to have
known when he paid it that a sale by the Tax Collector would be a nul-
lity, and would not invest the purchaser with even a colorable title, and
in such case the payment will be deemed voluntary. Id.
4. RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID.-When an assessment is void upon its face,
because made to one who does not own the property, and the true owner,
with a knowledge of the fact, but under a misapprehension of or in igno-
rance of the law, pays the tax under protest and to avoid a threatened
sale of the property by the Tax Collector, it is to be deemed a voluntary
payment, and he cannot recover back the money in a suit against the
Tax Collector. Id.
5. COLLATERAL ATTACK ON LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.-One who is a party to and
bound by legal proceedings in relation to an assessment for widening a
street, cannot attack these proceedings for mere error, in a collateral
action. His remedy is by appeal. Id.
See STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 5; TAXES, 32.
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 22.
See TAXES, 12, 31, 32; SUPERVISORS, 3.
1. DISCHARGE UNDER BANKRUPT ACT. — Under the Bankrupt Act of the
United States, a discharge cannot be obtained from a debt created while
acting in a fiduciary character. Treadwell v. Holloway, 547.
2. CREATING DEBT IN FIDUCIARY CHARACTER.
consigned to him on commission to be sold, and the proceeds, less com-
missions, to be transmitted to the consignor, if he sells the goods and
fails to transmit the money, creates a debt in a fiduciary capacity. Id.
Sec APPEAL, 2.
1. BILL OF PARTICULARS.-A count in a complaint for a sum of money alleged
to be due by the defendant, for the use and occupation of the plaintiff's
land, does not present a claim upon which a bill of particulars can be
required. Moore v. Bates, 29.
1. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS--An extract from the minutes of the Clerk, signed
by the Judge in the course of the proceedings from day to day, is not a
bill of exceptions. Iaraszthy v. Horton, 545.
2. SUFFICIENT.-A bill of exceptions to an order denying a continuance, is
not sufficient to present the alleged error in denying the continuance,
unless it contains the affidavits used on the hearing of the motion. Id.
3. POWER OF The Court to adDD TESTIMONY. — It is within the general
power of the Court to add to a proposed bill of exceptions any testimony
given at the trial pertinent to the exceptions and necessary to the cor-
rect presentation of the errors assigned. People v. Kelly, 355.
See PRACTICE, 1; MANDAMUS, 4.
BOARD OF EXAMINERS.
See COSTS, 3.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
See TAXES, 34, 35, 36.
People v. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 676, in People v. Russell, p. 122.
CASES CITED AS AUTHORITY.
Brown v. Martin, 25 Cal. 89, Kent v. Snyder, 30 Id. 672, Caulfield v. Saun-
ders, 17 Id. 571, Miles v. Thorne, 38 Id. 335, Love v. Watkins, 40 Id.
547, and Hill v. Grigsby, 35 Id. 662, in Brennan v. Ford, 8.
Reeve v. Kennedy, 43 Cal. 743, in Stokes v. Geddes, 17.
People v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado County, 8 Cal. 58, Lincoln v.
Colusa County, 28 Id, 662, Waugh v. Chauncy, 13 Id. 11, People v.
Birchan, 15 Id. 50, Miller v. Sacramento, 25 Id. 93, Sherman v. Buick,
32 Id. 241, and Creanor v. Nelson, 23 Id. 464, in Kimball v. Board of
Supervisors, 19.
|