Crouch v. Shafer

HENSHAW, J.

Defendant Shafer held the record title to the real property, ownership of which is here in controversy. Plaintiffs’ title rests upon a sheriff’s deed made after foreclosure of the lien of a street assessment upon this property, in which action the predecessor in interest of defendant Shafer was impleaded and served as a party defendant, suffered default and an adverse judgment. Defendants Campbell and Smith deraign title through a tax deed from the state antedating the lien of the street assessment.

Appellant Shafer’s contentions may be disposed of with brevity. His attack upon plaintiff’s title, in which he is joined by his fellow defendants, amounts to but a collateral attack upon a judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the action. The judgment is neither void nor invalid upon its face, and such a collateral attack will not be listened to.

(Wood

v.

Jordan,

125 Cal. 261, [57 Pac. 997];

Brush

v.

Smith,

141 Cal. 466, [75 Pac. 55];

Emery

v.

Kipp,

154 Cal. 83, [129 Am. St. Rep. 141, 16 Ann. Cas. 792, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 983, 97 Pac. 17];

Crouch

v.

Miller,

169 Cal. 341, [146 Pac. 880].)

As between plaintiffs and defendants Campbell and Smith, the controversy is over the validity of the tax deed through

[156]

which the latter deraign title. The court found with the contentions of the plaintiffs that it was invalid. The principal irregularities amounting to illegalities urged against the validity of the tax deed are two. Section 3897 of the Political Code at the time of the proceedings required the tax collector about to sell the property to “give notice of such sale by first publishing a notice for at least three successive weeks in some newspaper published in the county or city and county, or if there be no newspaper published therein, then by posting a notice in three conspicuous places in the county or city and county, one of which shall be at the United States postoffice nearest the land, in addition to a notice conspicuously posted on the land itself for the same period." Still further, that “it shall be the duty of the tax collector to mail within five days after the publication of said notice of sale a copy of said notice, postage thereon prepaid and registered, to the party to whom the land was last assessed next before the sale, at his last known post-office address.” (Pol. Code, sec. 3897.) The notice in this instance was by publication, but in addition to publication the tax collector did not post a notice conspicuously on the land.