MacHado v. Canty
Before: Burnett
Synopsis
Action to Quiet Title—Findings—Support op Judgment—Title Under United States Patent—Void Tax Sale op Public Domain.—In an action to quiet title by a plaintiff, alleging ownership in fee under a United States patent, in pursuance of a homestead entry made June 1, 1897, as against a defendant claiming a tax title under the state, by a sale of the public domain for taxes of the year 1895, where the findings cover all of the issues presented, it is held that the judgment for the plaintiff follows logically and necessarily from the facts found; that the tax sale of the public domain is void under the law, and that the finding as to plaintiff’s ownership in fee is of an ultimate fact, sufficient to support the judgment.
Id;—Absence op 'Conflict in Findings—Construction op Uncertain Findings—Presumption as to Absent Finding,—It is held that there is no conflict in the findings, when taken together; and that any uncertainty in the findings is to be construed so as to support the judgment rather than to defeat it; and that if it were the fact that the findings do not cover all of the material issues, in the condition of the record, it would be presumed that any omission therein was .without prejudice; though it is held' that the findings do cover all of the essential allegations of the pleadings.
In.—Judgment Quieting Title Against Void Tax Title—Refunding of Taxes Paid not Required.—It is held that it was not error for the trial court to render a judgment for the plaintiff quieting his title, as against the void tax title held by the defendant, without requiring the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the amount that iwas paid for the property at the tax sale. The state had no right to assess taxes on the land of the United States, and a tax titlq thereunder could convey no title to the state, and it could convey none to defendant. The taxes paid by him were voluntary and cannot be recovered; and he can claim no subsequent taxes, or lien therefor, which has not been acquired by him.
Id.—Judgment Right upon Merits not Reversible for Immaterial New Evidence.—It is held that the judgment rendered by the superior court should be affirmed, and cannot be reversed and remanded for a new trial, upon a showing of evidence newly discovered pending the appeal which is stated to be upon information of a witness not produced, and shows that the evidence stated would be immaterial, upon a new trial, as it merely states that in 1895, when the public domain was assessed, a .homestead claimant was then in possession, which shows a title then in the United States, which was not subject to taxation by the state. The law in force at the time of the assessment must govern.
BURNETT, J.
The action, brought in the usual form to quiet title, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, from which the appeal is taken on the judgment-roll.
The decisive question is whether the findings support the judgment. The court found: "That the plaintiff is now, and for. more than three years prior to the commencement of this-
[37]
action has been, the owner, in fee and entitled to the possession of that certain real property [describing it]. That the defendant, D. J. Canty, claims some right, title or interest in said real property adverse to said plaintiff; .that the said claim of defendant is based upon a certain assessment of said property for state and county taxes of the year 1895, for which taxes said property was purported to have been sold to the state of California by the tax collector of the county of Fresno, state aforesaid, on July 3, 1896, said tax collector’s certificate of such purported sale being thereupon issued to said state, also upon said tax collector’s deed dated on or about July 8, 1901, purporting to convey the title to said premises to the state of California, and also upon said tax collector’s deed to defendant, dated May 31, 1905, purporting to convey to defendant all of the interest of the state of California in and to said real property. That at the time said assessment was levied upon said real property, and during the entire year 1895, said land was a part of the public domain of the United States of America, and not subject to taxation by the state of California. That on or about the first day of June, 1897, plaintiff made application to enter upon said land as a homestead entryman, said application being numbered 9596, and thereafter, on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1904, final certificate No. 4641 was issued by the general land office of the United States of America to plaintiff, and on March 8, 1905, letters patent of said land were issued by the United States of America to plaintiff, conveying to plaintiff the absolute title thereto.” Then follow the conclusions of law that said assessment and tax deed were void, that defendant has no interest in the property, and that plaintiff is the owner in fee simple and entitled to the possession thereof, and directing a decree in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
That the judgment in favor of plaintiff follows logically and necessarily from the facts found seems beyond candid controversy. The only pretense of an argument that could be made to the contrary is based upon the assumption that the purported findings of fact are in reality but a statement of legal conclusions. This is, however, opposed to the correct view of the situation. The finding that plaintiff “is the owner in fee” of the property is of an ultimate fact and is
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)