Plaintiff sued to quiet title to certain real property situated in the city of Albany. Plaintiff had judgment against all defendants but this appeal is prosecuted solely by defendant, city of Albany.
Plaintiff deraigned title through a purchaser who had purchased the property at a tax sale held on September 1, 1938, under the provisions of section 3897 of the Political Code. The essential facts were not in dispute and a written stipulation was filed at the trial covering most of these facts and also setting forth the contentions of the parties and the issue to be determined by the trial court.
It appears that said real property had been deeded to the state for delinquent taxes; that the tax sale Was thereafter held and that plaintiff’s grantor became the purchaser. It further appears that the city of Albany had a lien or liens upon said real property at the time of said sale for delinquent city taxes levied prior to said sale. The regularity of the proceedings for the assessment and levy of all said delinquent taxes is conceded. It is also conceded that the tax sale held on September 1, 1938, was conducted in all respects in accordance with the provisions of said section 3897; that plaintiff’s grantor paid to the tax collector of Alameda County the amount bid, which was in excess of $200, and that said tax collector duly conveyed said real property to plaintiff’s grantor.
The stipulation of the parties set forth their respective contentions as follows: “(1) That defendant City of Albany claims that said tax sale had no effect upon the aforesaid lien or liens for taxes and assessments of said city existing at the time of said sale. (2) That plaintiff claims that upon said sale plaintiff’s grantor became the owner in fee of said property, free and clear of all liens for taxes and
The issue before the trial court was stated in said stipulation in the following language: “That the sole issue in this case is whether said sale, under section 3897 of the Political Code, had or has the effect of wiping out and eliminating all liens on said property existing in favor of the City of Albany at the time of said sale, in view of the constitution and all laws of the State of California, and of the charter and ordinances of the City of Albany introduced in evidence, as the same existed on September 1, 1938.”
The trial court sustained plaintiff’s contentions and quieted plaintiff's title against all defendants, except as to the lien of taxes levied after the date of the tax sale. The propriety of the trial court’s judgment is not questioned on this appeal except insofar as it has the effect of quieting plaintiff’s title against tax liens existing in favor of the city of Albany at the time of the sale for taxes levied by said city prior thereto.
It appears unnecessary to set forth in this opinion the lengthy provisions of said section 3897 of the Political Code as they existed on September 1, 1938. (See Peering's 1937 Political Code, section 3897.) That section had been amended following the decision in
La Mesa etc. Irr. Dist.
v.
Hornbeck,
Nor is a detailed discussion of the provisions of said section 3897 required as there is no dispute concerning the construe
Said defendant contends that “The tax system of the city is a municipal affair to the extent that section 3897 will not apply to the city of Albany.” It is argued that “taxation for municipal purposes is a municipal affair” and that “where a city charter empowers city officials to lay down a general taxation scheme for the levy and collection of municipal taxes; and where the city ordinances provide in detail such an entire tax scheme; any general laws which relate to or attempt to control the same matters covered by such an entire tax scheme must be held inapplicable.”
It appears well settled, speaking generally, that ‘1 Taxation for municipal purposes is a municipal affair. . . . ” Such language was used in
Keyes
v.
San Francisco,
The question of what constitute “municipal affairs” within the meaning of article XI, section 6 of the Constitution has been before the courts on frequent occasions and reference has been frequently made to the difficulty encountered in attempting to give to that term a precise and accurate definition. In certain authorities cited by defendant and in other authorities, it is indicated that said term “municipal affairs, ” as so used, is limited to those matters which may be said to be “purely” municipal affairs (see
Ex parte Braun, supra,
p. 210;
Storke
v.
City of Santa Barbara, supra,
p. 48;
Gadd
v.
McGuire,
In the instant case, the “affair” or matter under consideration is to be found in said section 3897 of the Political Code. That section did not purport to invade the field of general municipal taxation law which the governing bodies of chartered cities had the power to enact for their respective cities. It purported to deal only with a subject with respect to which the governing bodies of chartered cities and of other political subdivisions and taxing agencies had no power to legislate. The evident purpose of the legislature in amending said section was to attempt a solution of the problems presented by so-called overlapping tax liens and to provide a
The judgment is affirmed.
Nourse, P. J., and Dooling, J. pro tem., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 5, 1941.