Carter v. Osborn

McFARLAND, J.

This is an action to quiet plaintiff’s title to a piece of land in the city of Los Angeles, county of

[621]

Los Angeles, described as “lot fifty-four (54) of the Wieseudanger tract as per map recorded in book 9, page 68, miscellaneous records of said county.” Judgment went for plaintiff, and from this judgment defendant appeals.

The plaintiff had the legal title to the lot in question, the same having been conveyed to him on February 3, 1904, by one Berger Kallander, who then owned it, unless such title passed from said Kallander and vested in defendant by virtue of certain tax proceedings and deeds. The defendant claims title through an assessment for the year 1894, a tax-deed to the state executed July 6, 1900, and a deed to defendant from the state. The court made only two findings of ultimate facts, —namely, that plaintiff “is the owner” of the land in question, and that defendant has “no right, title or interest therein.” However, the bill of exceptions and" the points of counsel show upon what theory the case was tried. That theory was that the tax proceedings and deeds were for various reasons void and- conveyed no title. Objections to the introduction of the tax-deed to the state were sustained, the main objection being that the “deed does not recite the time when the right of redemption had expired.” Various objections were also sustained to other documents and to the assessment for 1894. But nearly all these points were decided against the contention of respondent and adversely to the rulings of the court in the recent case of

Baird

v.

Monroe,

L. A. No. 1623,

ante,

p. 560, [89 Pac. 352], the opinion in which was filed February 16, 1907. It was there held that the alleged defect in the tax-deed to the state was cured by the act of the legislature approved February 28, 1903, [Stats. 1903, p. 63,] the purpose of which act was to “confirm, validate, and legalize” certain tax-deeds. In the case at bar respondent contends, and the court must have found, that said act was unconstitutional; but the question was elaborately discussed in