Davis v. Day

[558]

PARKER, J.,

pro tem.

tem.suit to quiet title after a motion for a new trial had been denied. It will be unnecessary to describe the property involved other than to state that the said property comprises certain city lots in the city of Oakland. For the purposes hereof the lots may be described as lots 6, 10, 11 in block 2 as said lots appear upon that certain map entitled “Map of the R. F. Knox Tract, Brooklyn, Alameda County, California, etc.,” filed October 9, 1880, in the office of the county recorder of Alameda County. The separate claim of the defendants as affecting the property need not be recited inasmuch as plaintiff makes the same claim to each lot and if plaintiff prevails as to one it will determine his right to all. The sole point involved in this appeal is as to the validity of . certain tax proceedings and the effect of a deed following. Willis M. Arnett on and before the first Monday in March was the owner of all the property involved. The assessment-book of the property of Alameda County for the year 1919 shows the assessment of the property involved as fol7 lows:- The taxes due under this assessment, or claimed to be due, were not paid and upon such failure of payment of taxes the property was listed as delinquent upon the delinquent rolls of Alameda County. Such listing upon the delinquent roll is in the manner as follows, to wit:

[559]

[560]

It is the contention of the appellant that the property here in question, namely, lots 6, 10, 11 in block 2, were never legally assessed, and that as an assessment “is an essential prerequisite to the validity of all subsequent proceedings” the lack thereof would render ineffective any attempted sale following an alleged failure to pay taxes claimed. The basis of 'the contention is that the assessment itself shows that the name of the owner of lots 6, 10, 11 does not appear upon the roll. In other words, it is appellant’s contention, in this respect, that from-the appended exemplar it is self-evident that the only parcel of land that shows the name of the owner is lot 4, and the contention is supported by the claim of appellant that as the name of the owner “Willis M. Arnett appears but once, and then opposite and to the left of lot 4 that the ownership by the specified name is to be restricted to the lot. Before pursuing the arguments further we might state that the remaining pages of the assessment roll show that in each assessment the method followed was to insert the name of the owner but once and to include under the one name, all property assessed or attempted to be assessed as the property of the owner. Appellant cites us many authorities but none which we deem in themselves controlling herein. It may be conceded that tax proceedings, from the very inception thereof down to enforcement of payment, are deemed