Boxwell v. Sylvia

MARKS, J.

Respondent commenced his action to quiet title to an undivided one-half interest in lands in Imperial County, California, against the defendants and appellant. The defendants B. M. Davis, sued in the action as Robert Davis, and Annabcll Davis appeared and answered. The defaults of all of the other defendants were entered, personal service of the summons and complaint being had upon

[753]

appellant. The answers of B. M. Davis and Annabell Davis were, before trial, stricken from the record with their consent and their defaults were also entered. Upon evidence taken the court entered judgment in favor of respondent quieting his title to an undivided one-half interest in the land in controversy against all of the defendants and appellant. From this judgment appellant has taken this appeal.

Appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment in the court below on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. He points out that under certain of the allegations of the complaint respondent bases his title to his interest in the property in question upon a tax deed, in which the property in controversy is described as follows:

“That certain real property hereinbefore referred to, situate in the County of Imperial, State of California, more particularly described as follows, to wit: Und. % int.-Lot 8— sub. of Tract 77-13-14^”

He maintains that this description is so vague and uncertain that no interest in the- property was conveyed to respondent by the deed.

The description which we have quoted is quite similar to that involved in the case of

Stanton

v.

Hotchkiss,

157 Cal. 652 [108 Pac. 864], where the Supreme Court held that it was sufficient to convey title. However, we may assume, but not hold, that the contention of appellant is correct and that the description in the tax deed is void for uncertainty, and still we find that we must affirm the judgment.

The record contains a certificate of sale of the Imperial Irrigation District for unpaid assessments for the year 1925, which certificate bears date September 8, 1926. It is alleged in the complaint that in addition to the tax deed which we have referred to, respondent claims and deraigns his title through this certificate of sale as well as a second certificate of sale by the Imperial Irrigation District dated the eighth day of September, 1927. In the earlier certificate the property is described as “situate, lying and being in the said Imperial Irrigation District, in the County of Imperial, State of California, and more particularly described as follows: Lot 8, Tract 77, Township 13 South, Range 14 East, S. B. M. (as per map on file in County Recorder’s office), containing 25.25 acres”. There is no question but that this description