Section 3650 (Political Code) prescribes the form of the assessment book, and declares that in it must be listed all property within the county, and that in separate columns, under appropriate headings, the different kinds of property must be specified; and in subdivision 15, provides that "each franchise must be entered on the assessment roll without combining the same with other property, or the valuation thereof." Section 3655 (Political Code) provides that the Assessor must, on the first Monday in July of each year, transmit to the State Board a statement showing: 1. The several kinds of personal property. 2. The average and total value of each. Section 3693 (Political Code) is, that the State Board may equalize the property of the State by adding to or deducting from the valuation : I. The real estate. 2. Improvements upon such real estate. 3. The personal property, except money, such percentum respectively, as is sufficient to raise or reduce it to its full cash value. Section 3727 (Political Code) requires the Assessor to “add up the valuations and enter total valuations of all property on the assessment book." Section 3728 (Political Code) is, that the Auditor must, on or before the third Monday in August of each year, prepare from the assessment book of such year, as corrected by the Board of Supervisors, duplicate statements, showing in separate columns : 1. The total value of all property. 2. The value of real estate. 3. The value of the improvements thereon. money. 5. The amount of money. 6. The number of acres of land. Section 3732 requires the Auditor to make oath that he has "added up the columns of valuations, * as required by law." * The delinquent list must contain "all matters and things contained in the assessment book." (Sec. 3760, Political Code.) A statement must be sent to the Controller, of "each kind" of property assessed. Political Code.) (Sec. 3763, The published delinquent list must contain a description of property delinquent, and when the tax on personal property is a lien upon real property, the tax on the former must be added to the tax on the latter. (Sec. 3764, Political Code.) To hold that the State Board may blend personal and real property in one assessment, and have it so entered on the assessment book, is to nullify and render inoperative every section of the Political Code above cited. e. The assessment made by the State Board as shown by the statement transmitted to the Assessor of Sacramento County and entered upon the Assessment Book, is void for want of description. There is another fatal defect in the pretended assessment: Section 3664 (Political Code) pro vides that the State Board, in the statement which it transmits to the Assessor, must describe "the whole of said tracks within the county, including the right of way by metes and bounds, or other description sufficient for identification." The statement transmitted in the case of the Central Pacific Railroad Company (the only one to be considered, petitioner having upon the oral argument dismissed as to all other companies) contains no description of the right of way by metes and bounds, nor any description by which the right of way could be identified. The only description is, "beginning at Dry Creek, the boundary line between said county and San Joaquin, near Galt, thence through Galt northerly to near and east of Sacramento City; also from the City of Sacramento north and easterly to the dividing line between Placer and Sacramento Counties, at or near Antelope." The starting point is not fixed. It is some place on the boundary line, near Galt. The first terminus given is near and east of Sacramento City. This is equally indefinite. The next description is from the city of Sacramento north and easterly to the dividing line between Placer and Sacramento Counties, at or near Antelope. It may start from any point in the city of Sacramento, and may strike the line of Placer County at any point near Antelope. But, if the description so far as goes was certain and definite, it would still fail, for it neither designates the right of way by any common or known name, nor fixes its limits in width or by relation to the track or roadway. There is abso lutely nothing in the description by which the right of way could be identified, and this is fatal to the assessment. People vs. Mariposa Co., 31 Cal. 199. In conclusion upon this point, it would seem to be clear that, if the action of the State Board of Equalization was without any authority of law and void, no injury could accrue to the petitioner by reason of any action of the Board of Equalization of the County in relation thereto, and that the Court would not review such application in this proceeding--certainly not at the instance of the petitioner, for petitioner could have no beneficial interest in the question. Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1069. On the contrary, it would be manifestly to the interest of the petitioner to allow the proceeding of the County Board to stand, and to permit the parties in interest to pay, as they propose to do, the tax in question. So far as counsel are advised, and they believe they are fully advised in the premises, it is the desire and the intention of the railroad companies affected by these proceedings to pay both the State and County taxes for the year 1881 levied upon a fair valuation, without regard to the fact that the laws under which the same were levied are unconstitutional. The companies avail themselves of the situation, not to evade a just and reasonable assessment as now fixed by the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, which they are willing to and will pay, but to evade the imposition of a tax largely in excess of what others are required to pay upon property of the same value. II. Under the Constitution and laws of this State, the Board of Equalization of Sacramento County had the authority, and it was their duty, upon proper application, to act upon every assessment contained in the Assessment Book of that county, The State Board of Equalization under the Constitution exercises the power of equalization as between the property of the several counties. (Constitution, Article XIII, section 9). The power to assess property a separate and distinct power (Wells, Fargo & Co. vs. State Board of Equalization, September 18 and 21, 1880,) is distributed by the Constitution (Article XIII, section 10,) between county officers and the State Board of Equalization. The Board exercises, in the first instance, the assessorial powers upon franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails and rollingstock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this State" while the County Assessors exercise the same power as to all other property. The Boards of Supervisors of the several counties of the State constitute Boards of Equalization for their respective counties, with power to equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the county. (Article XIII, Section 9.) This scheme distributes the whole of both |