Fall v. Mayor & Common Council of Marysville

Citations

• 19 Cal. 391

Syllabus

<p>The charter of the city of Marysville contains this clause: “ The Common ■Council shall have power within the city to construct a bridge across the Tuba river at the southern extremity of the public plaza, or to authorize the construction upon such terms as to a division of the proceeds from the tolls . as may be just, and to regulate the rates of tolls.” Under this clause, an ordinance was passed granting Baton & Smith the franchise of constructing a bridge, the grant to last twenty-five years, they paying the city five per cent. • of the gross tolls. They constructed the bridge, and subsequently assigned all their interest in it and the franchise to plaintiff, who has regularly paid over the five per cent. The city now assesses a tax on the bridge as the property of plaintiff: Hdd, that plaintiff has a taxable estate in the bridge, and that the tax is valid; that the city is not the present owner of the bridge, but has only a reversionary interest.</p> <p>Hdd, further, that the objection, that the bridge has been assessed at its full value, docs not affect plaintiff’s right to maintain this suit to enjoin the collection of this tax, but only goes to the amount of the tax, and not to its validity; and that the only remedy of plaintiff was to apply for a reduction of the tax.</p> <p>The property was not taxable beyond plaintiff’s interest in it; and in legal effect, the tax assessed amounted to nothing more than a tax upon such interest.</p>