DISTRICT BOND CO v. CITY OF SOUTH GATE (1934)

Appellant petitioned the superior court for an alternative writ of mandate directed to respondents and commanding them to levy taxes for the year 1933-34 sufficient to pay interest and installment of principal on certain bonds issued under the “Acquisition and Improvement Act of 1925,” setting out that defendants had included in the ordinance under and by which it was proposed to levy taxes as for the ensuing year an amount of $14,472 for this purpose, whereas a sum of $54,708 was actually required. The ordinance was proposed August 21, 1933; the petition was filed August 26 and denied August 28, whereupon the ordinance was adopted by defendant city council. At the time of the hearing defendants' demurrer was overruled, no evidence was received, the peremptory writ was denied, and the alternative writ discharged. The judgment recites that the answer raised no essential question of fact.

Taxes for 1933-34 have been levied and, except for delinquencies, have been paid. The time is long since past to make said levy for the current fiscal year. This appeal being for the purpose of reviewing the alleged error of the lower court, the questions here presented have become moot, since respondents could not be compelled to do that which they cannot legally do, to wit, levy at this time additional taxes for the year mentioned.

Appellant urges that the case of Pasadena Junior College District v. Board of Supervisors, 216 Cal. 61, 13 P.(2d) 678, supports his contention that a determination of this appeal in his favor will result in proper action being taken at the time of making the levy of taxes for 1934-35. That case was an original proceeding in mandamus in the Supreme Court, whereas this is an appeal from the superior court, and the principles therein set forth are not available to this appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

I concur.

Neither the affirmance nor the reversal of the trial court's judgment would of itself avail appellant anything, whereas a new proceeding instituted in time for next year's tax levy would solve its problem. Obviously we are not anticipating the decision if such proceeding should be instituted before us.

SCOTT, Justice pro tem.