Opinion

Taylor v. Palmer

  • 31 Cal. 240
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 1, 1866
Status
Published
Author
Sawyer
On the bench
Sanderson, Sawyer, Shafter
Cited by
94 cases

Disapproved on other grounds by Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 (1879)

landmark case in which the court held that performance can be delegated where it does not require "rare genius and extraordinary skill"

How later courts described this case

  • landmark case in which the court held that performance can be delegated where it does not require "rare genius and extraordinary skill"

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Disapproved on other grounds by Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 (1879)

    31 Cal. 240, 252 , disapproved on another ground in Turney v. Dougherty (1879) 53 Cal. 619
    California Supreme CourtJul 1, 1879other groundsmedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

Sawyer, J., dissenting:

I dissent from the conclusions attained by a majority of my associates upon the point upon which the judgment is modified, although I concur in much, but not all, that is said in discussing it. It does not appear to me that the reasoning in the prevailing opinion necessarily leads to the conclusion which I understand to be attained, that the amount which may be assessed upon the property adjacent to the improvement, and legally collected, may not be made a general personal charge against the owner, as well as a lien upon the property assessed. I am unable to perceive that the collection of the amount legally payable out of other property than that which is the basis of the assessment is a transfer of the assessment from the property assessed to the property out of which the amount actually collectable is paid. The property assessed is still the foundation upon which the assessment is 'based, and the rest relates to the remedy for collecting the amount which the land, or the owner, is liable to pay. Nor do I understand that this view would necessarily authorize the collection of an amount greater than the real value of the property assessed. The amount for which property actually sells under the Sheriff’s hammer is not conclusive of its real value. Under the rules of evidence such amount is not the measure of the value. Time will not now permit a more extended discussion of the question, but, if the other business *258 of the Court will permit, I will express my views more fully hereafter.

In the other points determined, I concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.