*1 903 ante, p. 508], 419 P.2d I would County Angeles, Los v. [311 of judgment. affirm the Gibson, J.,C. concurred. my in dis Dissenting. For thereasons stated
CARTER, J., Angeles v. senting opinion in Church Los First Unitarian of p. 508], I would County Angeles, ante, 419 P.2d Los [311 of judgment. affirm the [311] P.2d 546] Apr. 24, 1957.] In Bank. F. No. 19322. [S. Respondent, RAN- SPEISER, v. JUSTIN A. LAWRENCE Appellant. DALL, Assessor, etc., as Apr. 24, 1957.] In F. No. 19323. Bank. [S. MARY SPEISER, Respondent,
LAWRENCE v. ELLEN FOLEY, Appellant. Assessor, etc., as Attorney Collins, (Contra Francis W. District Costa), McBride, Thomas F. Assistant Attorney, George District W. Deputy McClure, Attorney, District and Anglim, Clifford C. City Attorney (El Cerrito), for Appellants. Speiser, pro.
Lawrence in per., Joseph and Landisman for Respondent. Beardsley Stanley
Charles Weigel E. and A. as Amici Respondent. Curiae on behalf of SHENK, appeal by J. This isan the defendants from a single judgment in two consolidated in cases which the com plaintiff, mon Speiser, sought declaratory Lawrence relief against county the assessors of the of Contra Costa the and
904
city county of to the effect that El in that Cerrito located and section 32 section 19 of XX of article the Constitution of and he is the and are invalid that Revenue Taxation Code provided for exemption entitled to the property veterans’ tax in section of XIII of the notwith- article Constitution V-/± standing provisions the of those enactments.
The the and material facts in these two cases are same appear by stipulation parties in The of the the trial court. plaintiff city is of of El Cerrito and the a resident the county of requirements all of the Contra Costa. He meets for the exemption except application tax that his veterans’ in year for the tax 1954-1955 he and to failed refused subscribe application to the nonsubversive oath contained in form the supplied by pursuant the to XX, assessors article section 19 of the Constitution and section the 32 of Revenue and Taxation applications Code. His rejected. thereupon were com- He menced declaratory these actions for The court relief. trial held that provisions the constitutional and the code section infringement were an upon speech invalid as right the of free guaranteed by the Constitution, federal and that section 32 was invalid for the failing require reason that in to an oath from the groups members of all tax otherwise entitled to exemptions an imposed. unreasonable classification was The judgment plaintiff ordered granted exemption. that the be the The urged appeal contentions on in these cases are same the presented as those City in County Prince & v. Fran- San of cisco, ante, p. 472 P.2d For reasons in stated [311 544]. opinions the in that and in case First Unitarian Church Los of Angeles County Angeles, v. Los ante, p. 419 P.2d [311 of 508], the prevailed. defendants should have judgment
The is reversed. Schauer, J., J., Spence, McComb, and J., concurred. TRAYNOR, J., Dissenting. my For thereasons stated in dissenting opinion in First Angeles Unitarian Church Los v. of County Angeles, ante, p. Los 419 would 508], P.2d I [311 of judgment. affirm the
Gibson, J., C. concurred.
CARTER, J., Dissenting. my For thereasons stated in dissenting opinion in First Angeles Unitarian Church Los v. of County ante, Angeles, p. Los 419 508], P.2d I would [311 of judgment. affirm the