Harper v. Rowe

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 6135Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a tax sale and deed are void if the judgment-roll is not produced to establish jurisdiction, if the sale includes illegal charges, or if the tax levy itself is invalid. Furthermore, the court held that curative statutes cannot retroactively validate a void tax sale to deprive an owner of property without due process, and a purchaser at a void tax sale is not entitled to reimbursement of taxes paid as a condition for the owner to obtain relief.

Issues

Whether a party relying on a tax decree as a link in title must produce the judgment-roll to prove jurisdiction.
Whether a tax sale including illegal charges or based on an invalid tax levy is void.
Whether curative legislation can retroactively validate an otherwise void tax sale.
Whether a purchaser at a void tax sale is entitled to reimbursement of taxes paid as a condition for the owner to obtain relief.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If a party attempts to avail himself of a decree as an adjudication upon the subject matter, or as a link in his chain of title founded on a judicial sale under the decree, he must produce the judgment-roll”

“If the sale is absolutely void, the payment of the tax by the purchaser stands on the footing of a voluntary payment, not made at the request of the owner of the land, and which he is under no obligation to refund.”

Synopsis

Judgment-roll as Evidence.—If a party attempts to avail himself of a decree as an adjudication upon the subject-matter, or as a link in his chain of title founded on a judicial sale under the decree, he must produce the judgment-roll so that, among other things, the Court may determine, on an insj)eotion of the entire roll, whether the Court which rendered the decree had jurisdiction of the subject matter.

Void Tax Sales.—IXoughton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646; and Wills v. Austin, ante p. 153, affirmed.

Sales Void for Excess.—A sale of land for a sum in excess of that authorized by law, is void.

Interest on Delinquent Tax.—Sec. 3803 of the Political Code, authorizing the Tax Collector to include interest on the delinquent tax at the rate of two per cent, per month, does not apply to a sale made by the Tax Collector to collect a delinquent tax in the first instance.

Redemption from: Void Sale.—Sec. 3779 of the Political Code, requiring the I>urcliaser at a tax sale to reconvey upon “ payment of the purchase-money and fifty per cent, added thereon,” does not apply to a void sale.

Due Process of Law—Curative Tax Law.—The Acts of March 28th and 30th, 1874, did not have the effect to validate tax sales void under the law as it existed when the sales were made, for the reason that property cannot be taken “ without due process of law.”

Equity—Refunding Purchase-Money undeb Void Sam. —If a tax sale is absolutely void, the payment of the tax by the purchaser stands on the footing of a voluntary payment, not made at the request of the owner of the land, and which a Court of Equity will not require him to refund.

Opinion

By the Court: The Court bei*>w erred in admitting in evidence the decree in the tax suit without the production of the judgment-roll. If a party attempts to avail himself of a decree as an adjudication upon the subject matter, or as a link in his chain of title founded on a judicial sale under the decree, he must produce the judgment-roll, so that, amongst other things, the Court may determine, on an inspection of the entire roll, whether the Court which, rendered the decree had jurisdiction of the subject matter. It is true the purchaser at a judicial sale may rest, in support of his title, on the judgment, execution, and Sheriff’s deed; but he must produce a valid judgment, and the well-established rule is that the method of proving the judgment to be valid is by the production of the roll, on an inspection of which it may be determined whether^the Court had the neces[235]sary jurisdiction of the subject matter. (Greenleaf’s Ev. sec. 511; 2 Phillips’ Ev. p. 138; Com. Dig. tit. Ev. [A. 4] p. 85; Cowen & Hill’s Notes to Phil. Ev. [Part II] Note 119, p. 278.

The present case furnishes a striking illustration of the necessity of the rule. The Act of May 12th, 1862, (Statutes " 1862, p. 520) which was applicable to these proceedings, provides for an action in rem against the real estate alone, in which case the complaint and summons must describe the real estate sought to be charged, as is specifically required by the statute. These are jurisdictional facts, without which a judgment in rem could not be rendered against the real estate. In such a case, the subject matter of the action is the enforcement of the lien for taxes against a particular parcel of land described in the complaint, and not against some other tract. The tract so described is treated by the statute as a defendant, for the purposes of the action; and the Court would have no jurisdiction to render a judgment against some other tract as a defendant. Hence the necessity of producing the judgment-roll, so that, by inspecting it, the Court may determine whether the land against which the judgment was rendered was described in the complaint and summons.

On the facts found by the Court the sale made by the Sheriff as a Tax Collector on the 10th day of March, 1874,for the delinquent State and county taxes for the fiscal year 1873-4, and the Sheriff’s deed founded on the sale, were absolutely void for the reason stated in Wills v. Austin, decided at the last July term of this Court, (ante. p. 152). In Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646, it was decided that the attempted levy by the State Board of Equalization of State taxes for the fiscal years 1872-3 and 1873-4 was void, and there was, consequently, no valid levy of State taxes for those years. The sale having been made for this void tax as well as for the county tax, the whole sale was void and the Sheriff’s deed a nullity. The nexv section, 3811, added to the Political Codé by the Act of March 24th, 1874, had not then been passed, and, of course, has no application to that sale.

Harper v. Rowe

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — McKinstry

AI Brief