Bruschi v. Cooper (1916) · DecisionDepot

Bruschi v. Cooper

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 1916 No. Civ. No. 1425.Published

Before: Chipman, Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for rehearing, clarifying that the decision rests on the principle that a conclusive evidence clause in a tax deed does not extend to defects within the deed itself.

Issues

Whether an error in the owner's name in a tax assessment or certificate can be cured by a conclusive evidence clause.
Whether a conclusive evidence clause extends to defects in the tax deed itself.

Disposition. Petition denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decision can be supported on the ground that the conclusive evidence clause does not extend to defects in the deed itself, as was held in Henderson v. De Turk,164 Cal. 296, [128 P. 747].”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. L. W. Fulkerth, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The petition for a rehearing of this cause in the supreme court is denied.

Nothing in the opinion should be deemed to hold that the correct name of the owner is so essential to a tax assessment or a certificate of tax sale that an error therein as to the name of the owner cannot be cured by the section making the deed conclusive evidence of the regularity of the assessment and certificate. The decision can be supported on the ground that the conclusive evidence clause does not extend to defects in the deed itself, as was held in Henderson v. De Turk,164 Cal. 296, [128 P. 747].

Melvin, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Bruschi v. Cooper

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief