Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin
Pac. Elec. Ry. v. Rolkin
Opinion of the Court
The city assessor of Los Angeles did not file any protest against the taxation of the property in question as operative property of the Pacific Electric Railway Company until more than thirty days after he had received the copy of the company’s report which the law requires to be served upon him. The provision of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 538) that such protest "shall be filed within thirty days thereafter is jurisdictional. A protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make, any order disposing of the protest is, therefore, not a breach of duty and mandamus will not lie to com
For these reasons the application for a writ of mandate is denied.
Rehearing denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. EDWARD ROLKIN, as Members of the State Board of Equalization of the State of California
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Taxation—Assessment bt State Board of Equalization of Operative Property of Bailroad—Protest by City Assessor—Limitation of Time to Make Protest—Mandamus.—Under the provisions of the act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 538), any protest by a city assessor against the taxation by the state board of equalization of certain property of a railroad company as operative property must be filed within thirty days after Ms receipt of the company’s report, which that act requires to be served on him. Such requirement is jurisdictional, and a protest filed later has no effect, and does not require the state board to revise or alter its action in placing such property on the assessment-roll as operative property, or to dispose of the protest in any way. Its failure to make any order disposing of a belated protest is not a breach of duty, and mandamus will not lie to compel the entry of such order.