Quinn v. Kenney
Synopsis
Redemption of Land Sold fob Taxes. —A person redeeming from a tax sale made by the Collector of Taxes, under a judgment recovered for the tax, must pay the whole amount of the judgment, even if he own only an undivided interest in the land; but the payment does not redeem any land other than that which the redemptioner owned at the time of the tax sale.
Right of Redemption.—The right of redemption comes entirely from the Statute, and is subject to all the limitations and conditions imposed by the Statute.
Finding of Fact on Estoppel. — In an action to redeem from a tax sale where the purchaser at the sale and several others are made defendants, with an allegation that such purchaser has conveyed his interest in the certificate to the other defendants, a' finding by the Court that the purchaser at the tax sale still retains the property, and has not incumbered it, estops the other defendants in any future litigation.
Judgment in Action to Redeem fbom Tax Sale.—In an action by a minor to redeem from a tax sale, brought after the deed has been executed by the Tax Collector, the proper decree, if the purchaser at the tax sale has not conveyed or incumbered the property, is, that he convey the same to the plaintiff, and if such purchaser bring into court, and tender to the plaintiff such deed, the Court may decree that the plaintiff accept it, and recover costs.
By the Court: The plaintiff was the owner of only the undivided seven twenty-fourths of the block bounded by TJ and Y, and [150]Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets, and was not an owner in any other of the blocks included in the tax sale. The Statute of March 31st, 1866 (Stats. 1865-6, p. 607), requires that the person redeeming land from tax sale shall pay the whole amount of the judgment under which the sale was made. But that provision does not authorize a person to redeem any land other than such as he owned when the tax sale was made. The language of the statute is: “Provided further, that when the property sold belongs to minors or persons under legal disability, they shall have until six months after said disability is removed to redeem said property by paying the whole amount of the judgment/' etc. The right of redemption comes entirely from the statute, and it is subject to all the limitations and conditions therein imposed.
The Court found that the land had been conveyed by the Sheriff to Kenney, that the title still remained in him, and had not been incumbered by him. That finding will estop all the defendants in any future litigation which may arise. It was therefore proper that Kenney should convey to the plaintiff the title to the lands of the plaintiff, which he— Kenney—had acquired by virtue of the Sheriff’s sale and deed, and there is no other mode in which the redemption could be effected. A decree that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem his lands, or declaring that the Sheriff’s deed shall not operate as a conveyance of the plaintiff’s interest, would be no more effectual than Kenney’s deed; and it would not bind persons not. parties to the suit, who may have acquired titles to or liens upon the plaintiff’s interest in the lands while held by Kenney.
Judgment affirmed.
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)