Risso v. Crooks

PRESTON, J.

Action to quiet title commenced in 1923 hut not tried until January, 1931. The title alleged by

[220]

plaintiff was based upon a purported tax deed and an attempted showing of adverse possession. Defendant Stone Company, hereinafter denominated defendant and respondent, answered asserting fee simple absolute title to the property. The court found that the purported tax deed was void; that adverse possession was not established but that plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed by defendant for the sum of $2,411.80, which he had paid out in taxes and interest on the property. Judgment followed, decreeing that upon payment of said sum defendant’s claim to said property should be quieted and plaintiff should be forever enjoined from asserting any right adverse thereto. Plaintiff appealed.

The appeal is without merit. The record shows only clear and undisputed facts in support of the judgment. The property was originally sold to the state in 1908, but no deed was made to the state as required by statutes then in force. (Stats. 1895, p. 327 et seq.; Stats. 1909, p. 921.) Instead, the tax collector followed the procedure prescribed by the amendments of 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 557), and on July 7, 1914, issued to appellant a purported tax deed covering sale of the property for delinquent taxes thereon for the year 1909. This tax deed was void as the law existing at the time of the sale first above mentioned controls the period of redemption.

(Johnson

v.

Taylor,

150 Cal. 201, 205 [88 Pac. 903, 119 Am. St. Rep. 181, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818].) This authority is cited in

Biaggi

v.

Ramont,

189 Cal. 675, 679 [209 Pac. 892], a case directly in point, to which reference is made for a fuller discussion of the subject. This holding was not impaired by the later case of

Jacoby

v.