89 P. 608 | Cal. | 1907
This is an action to quiet plaintiff's title to a piece of land in the city of Los Angeles, county of *621 Los Angeles, described as "lot fifty-four (54) of the Wiesendanger tract as per map recorded in book 9, page 68, miscellaneous records of said county." Judgment went for plaintiff, and from this judgment defendant appeals.
The plaintiff had the legal title to the lot in question, the same having been conveyed to him on February 3, 1904, by one Berger Kallander, who then owned it, unless such title passed from said Kallander and vested in defendant by virtue of certain tax proceedings and deeds. The defendant claims title through an assessment for the year 1894, a tax-deed to the state executed July 6, 1900, and a deed to defendant from the state. The court made only two findings of ultimate facts, — namely, that plaintiff "is the owner" of the land in question, and that defendant has "no right, title or interest therein." However, the bill of exceptions and the points of counsel show upon what theory the case was tried. That theory was that the tax proceedings and deeds were for various reasons void and conveyed no title. Objections to the introduction of the tax-deed to the state were sustained, the main objection being that the "deed does not recite the time when the right of redemption had expired." Various objections were also sustained to other documents and to the assessment for 1894. But nearly all these points were decided against the contention of respondent and adversely to the rulings of the court in the recent case of Baird
v. Monroe, L.A. No. 1623, ante, p. 560, [
One or two points are made in the case at bar which perhaps were not covered in the Baird case, and they will be here noticed.
It is contended that the tax-sale was void because on the assessment-roll for the next ensuing year, 1895, there was stamped the words "Sold to state," without a statement that it was "sold for taxes," and the date of the sale. We think, however, that the words used sufficiently comply with the statute, and fully answer the purpose of giving notice to the owner of the fact of such sale.
A certificate of sale was introduced, and it is objected that while the total amount of the tax is correctly given at $3.10, yet the items given amount to only $2.43, which, with a penalty of ninety cents, makes only $3.33, instead of $4.00, for which it was sold. The assessment showed the total amount of tax to be the $3.10, which, with the ninety cents penalty, makes $4.00. We do not deem it necessary to consider whether this slight mistake in the computation would, in any event, affect the validity of the sale, which was made for the correct amount, because we are of the opinion that the certificate may be disregarded, for the reason that at the time of the sale sections 3776 and 3777 of the Political Code, which provide for such certificate, had been repealed (Stats. 1895, p. 19), and the attempt afterwards to amend the repealed sections (Stats. 1895, pp. 327, 328) was of no effect. (Pol. Code, sec. 330; Fletcher v. Prather,
It is contended that the tax-sale was void because in the delinquent list the amount due was not stated. There is in said list the word "amount," and immediately under it are the figures "4 00" — there being a space between the figure 4 and the two ciphers as they usually appear when they are intended to mean "dollars"; but there is no dollar-mark. For this contention respondent relies on certain early California cases — Hurlbutt
v. Butenop,
There are no other points calling for special notice.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, to be conducted in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion and in the opinion in the said case of Baird v. Monroe, ante, p. 560, [
*624Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.