Pretty v. Warden

MYERS, J.,

pro tem.

Defendants appeal from a judgment against them quieting plaintiff’s title to certain property in the city of Los Angeles as against the claim of defendants under a deed issued by the board of public works of said city to defendant Julia P. Warden after a failure of the plaintiff to redeem from the lien of a delinquent assessment previously levied against said property for public park purposes.

Appellants concede that the title is in the plaintiff, except as it may have been divested by the deed above mentioned and which was issued pursuant to proceedings had under the Park and Playground Act of 1909. (Stats. 1909, p. 1066.) Section 24 of this act provides that the purchaser must, at least thirty days before he applies for a deed, serve upon the owner of the property,

and

upon the occupant thereof, if occupied, a written notice of his intention to apply for a deed,

and

must also file with the board of public works an affidavit or affidavits showing that such notice has been given as required ; or, if the notice was not served upon the owner personally, that due diligence was used to find said owner. The affidavit of service here in question, so far as it is here material, is to the effect that affiant, as agent for the purchaser, served such notice “by delivering a true copy of the attached notice to redeem to Mrs. Charles Greenburg, the occupant of said property and the agent of the owner of said property.” It is manifest that here was no showing of personal service upon the owner, or of due or any diligence to accomplish such service.

Appellants argue that the evidence establishes the fact that Mrs. Greenburg, the occupant of the property, was also the duly authorized agent of the owner of the property, and that therefore the service of notice upon such duly authorized agent was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute, or was at the least sufficient evidence of due diligence in the effort to serve such owner. This appeal is taken under the

[708]

so-called alternative method, typewritten transcripts being filed. The appellants have wholly failed to print in their brief any of the testimony to which they refer, in violation of the express mandate of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court cannot be expected to search through typewritten transcripts for evidence which the litigants have neglected to present, in the manner prescribed by law, for its consideration.