McDonough v. Cooper

[385]

SLOSS, J.

Action to quiet title to two parcels of land in the city of Modesto. The court gave judgment declaring defendant, Ida B. Cooper, to be the owner of the property. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

The plaintiff deraigned title from the United States. The defendant, Cooper, claimed under a deed following a sale for nonpayment of an assessment levied by the Modesto Irrigation District for the year 1905.

Section 48 of the act under which the sale was had makes the collector’s deed, duly acknowledged and proved,

prima facie

evidence that the proceedings were regular in seven specified particulars, and then declares that such deed is conclusive evidence of “the regularity of all the proceedings from the assessment by the assessor, inclusive, up to the execution of the deed.” (Stats. 1897, p. 271.) This conclusive evidence clause differs from section 3787 of the Political Code in that it does not qualify the word “proceedings” by the word “other.” Nevertheless, we do not doubt that, as was intimated in

Escondido H. S. Dist.

v.

Escondido Seminary,

130 Cal. 128, 133, [62 Pac. 401], and held in

Bruschi

v.

Cooper,

30 Cal. App. 682, 692, [159 Pac. 728, 734], the legislative intent was that the deed should be conclusive with respect, only, to matters not covered by the preceding provision declaring its effect as

prima facie

evidence.

The appellant attacks the regularity and validity of the assessment itself. Under section 48 the deed is

prima facie

evidence that “the property was assessed as required by law.” The legislature did not, therefore (assuming that it might have done so without violation of constitutional rights), undertake to make the deed conclusive of the lawful assessment of the property.