Clayton v. Schultz

MAXET, J.,

pro tem.

The pertinent facts of this case are fully set forth in a former appeal between these same parties, reported in 4 Cal. (2d) page 425 [50 Pac. (2d) 446], At that time the record was insufficient to properly determine the rights of the parties hereto under the tax sale proceeding. All of the other controverted questions are fully answered by the decision above referred to. The plaintiff in intervention, having succeeded to all the rights and liabilities of the original plaintiff, will be referred to herein as the plaintiff.

The sole and only question here presented is: “Were the proceedings leading up to the sale of the real property herein involved for nonpayment of taxes regular and legal and sufficient to support the tax deed, which is the basis of plaintiff’s title!”

The tax deed, on its face, is not subject to criticism, and follows in identical language the form prescribed by section 4785b of the Political Code. (4 Cal. (2d) 425, 429 [50 Pac. (2d) 446].)

Defendants’ exhibit No. 1 is the delinquent tax list of the city and county of San Francisco, for the fiscal year 1926-1927. It shows publication in a supplement to the “Twin Peaks Sentinel”, under date of June 18, 1927.

Defendants’ exhibit No. 2 is “the delinquent tax list in and for the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, for city and county taxes, levied in the year 1931, for the fiscal year 1931-1932”, and shows publication made in a supplement to “National Industrial Review” under date of June 8, 1932.

It is conceded that the publications both in 1927 and in 1932 were made for the required statutory time in the supplements above referred to, and in no manner other than set out in said exhibits, and that the tax deed, which is the

[74]

basis of the claim of plaintiff’s herein is entirely dependent upon the validity of these publications for its legality and efficacy.

The supplement in each instance carried and contained no other printed matter than that pertaining to the delinquent list. Each was separately bound and covered and was not in anywise connected with the main part of the paper. The record is silent upon the question as to whether or not these papers were newspapers of general circulation, and we must therefore, conclude that the “Twin Peaks Sentinel” and the “National Industrial Review”, in so far as the questions herein involved are concerned, were newspapers of general circulation.