Barrett v. Amerein
Before: Sawyer
Synopsis
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, City and County of Sacramento.
This was an action to recover possession of the block bounded by J and K and Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth streets, City of Sacramento.
On the trial the plaintiff asked the Court to give the jury the following instructions, which the Court refused:
“First—If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant was in possession of the demanded premises, claiming it at the time of his purchase at the tax sale in October, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, then the salé would not result in passing the title to defendant.
“ Second—If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant has occupied the premises ever since eighteen hundred and sixty-two, with the purpose of acquiring title to said premises, then the tax sale to him will not result in passing the title to defendant.”
The Court then instructed the jury as follows:
“Gentlemen of the Jury: Under the proof in this case, there is but very little except matters of law arising in it; so, when I instruct you in reference to the law, you will have no difficulty in ascertaining what your verdict should be.
“The questions connected with the deeds and the force and effect of the judgments are matters of law. I instruct you that in the chain of title of plaintiff, down to the .time the defendant purchased a tax title, there is no flaw. John A. Watson had, by conveyance, become the owner of the entire block sued for in this case; at that time he was the only person compelled to pay tax, or upon whom rested any legal or moral obligations to pay such taxes.
“The defendant was in possession at that time, as a trespasser against Watson. Watson had a legal title at any time during Amerein’s occupancy of it down to the purchase of the tax title, and defendant could have been sued by Watson, and he could have recovered rents and profits of the entire land; and I submit to you that the defendant was not legally or morally bound to pay the taxes under these circumstances. Under the rule the Supreme Court has established, defendant might make purchase at a tax sale, and there would be no legal disability.
“ I will also say that the force and effect of the tax deed are matters of law, and the proceedings seem to have been regular. The taxes were levied and were unpaid. The District Attorney brought suit, and regularly obtained judgment against the land, got an order of sale, and the Sheriff sold it to the defendant in this suit. There is no flaw in that proceeding, and the sale passed the legal title of the land to the defendant in this suit.”
Plaintiffs excepted to the-charge.
By the Court, Sawyer, C. J. : This is an action to recover lands to which plaintiffs show a regular title under a patent from the United States. The defendant relies on a title derived from a sale for the taxes of the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, in all respects regular in form, and good if defendant was in a condition to purchase at the sale. If he was in possession, claiming the land, when the tax was levied and sale made, he was liable to be taxed, and it was his duty to pay the taxes, and, under such circumstances, we have often held, that he could not acquire an outstanding title by neglecting to pay the taxes, allowing the land to be sold, and purchasing at the sale. (McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 318; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 38; Coppinger v. Rice, 33 Cal. 425; Bernal v. Lynch, ante, 135.) There was no paper title shown in defendant, but there was evidence tending to show, that he had been in the occupation of the land, claiming it, since 1862. If his possession was adverse from the beginning, his title would have become perfect against all the world on the 19th of April, 1868—two days after the commencement of the suit—under the Statute of [327]Limitations of 1863, for five years would have then elapsed; and we apprehend from the evidence, that if suit had not been commenced within five years, the plaintiffs would have been met by the plea of the Statute of Limitations. If he was in possession, claiming the land, he had an interest subject to taxation, as real estate, within the meaning of section five of the Act of 1861, under which the tax was levied, (Stats. 1861, p. 421;) is the person “having the possession, charge, or control thereof,” and liable to be taxed under section thirteen, (Stats. 1861, pp. 422, 423;) and one of “the taxable inhabitants,” who, like all owners, should be assessed by name, if known, and, if unknown, one to whom the property should be assessed as “ unknown owners,” under section twenty. The property seems to have been so assessed in this instance, and the suit and judgment were against “ all unknown owners and claimants and against the land in rem,” in pursuance of the statute. In this State, it is notorious, that a very large number of people occupy lands for years, claiming them without any shadow of paper title; that they improve them and enjoy the revenues derived therefrom, as fully as though they owned the fee; and that not a few do, ultimately, acquire a title in this way, under the Statute of Limitations. Under such circumstances, the Legislature has seen fit to treat such parties in the occupation and enjoyment of lands, as owners, for the purposes of taxation, and has made them liable to taxation and imposed the legal obligation of payment upon them. Under these circumstances and the state of the evidence, therefore, we think the Court erred in refusing the first and second instructions asked by plaintiff, and in giving the charge expressing the opposite view.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)