Clarke v. Mead
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Quieting Title—Assessment For Widening Street—Sale For Delinquent Assessment—Evidence—Certificate of Sale.—In an action to quiet title, where the defendant claims title under a sale and conveyance by the superintendent of streets, for a delinquent assessment for the widening of a street, the certificate of sale is relevant and competent evidence of the official act of the officer in making the sale, and is admissible to show that it conforms to the requirements of the Political Code, and contains the matters required by the code to be recited in the deed.
Id.—Notice of Application For Deed—Variance in Date.—The statute does not require that notice of application for a deed, under a sale for a delinquent assessment, should be dated; and where it appears that the notice contained the matters required by the Political Code in order to authorize the execution of the deed, and was given more than thirty days before the execution of the deed, the fact that the notice bore a different date does not impair its effect.
Id.—Deed From Superintendent of Streets—Prima Facie Evidence of Preliminary Steps—Power of Legislature.—The legislature has power to make a deed prima facie evidence of preliminary steps requisite to its validity; and in the absence of proof of any of the acts of which a deed from the superintendent of streets, upon sale of property for a delinquent assessment for the widening of a street, is made primary evidence by the statute, the deed itself is sufficient evidence to authorize the court to find that all the preliminary steps have been regularly taken, and that the title of the land sold has been thereby transferred to the grantee.
Id.—Bules of Evidence—Political Code—Code of Civil Procedure.— The rule of evidence prescribed in the Political Code declaring the effect of the deed of the officer, and making it prima fade, or presumptive, evidence of other facts is not in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to evidence, and it is not a ground of objection to the effect of such deed as prima fade evidence, that the provision making it such is not found in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Id,—Construction of Codes.—The provisions of the four codes are to be construed as though they were all parts of the same statute; and it is only when there is a conflict between the provisions that it is necessary to determine which shall prevail.
Harrison, J. Action to quiet title. The plaintiff was the owner of a certain tract of land in San Francisco, situate in the district which was assessed for the widening of Mission street, continued from Twenty-sixth street to the county line. The assessment being delinquent, the superintendent of streets sold the lot to the defendant, November 29, 1889, and no redemption having been made, that officer, on the 29th of December, 1890, executed a conveyance of the land to the defendant. At the trial the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show title in himself at the date of the sale, and the defendant offered in evidence the certificate of sale, testimony tending to show that the notice of the application for a deed required by section 8785 of the Political Code had been given, and the deed to himself from the superintendent of streets. The court rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from this order and the judgment he has appealed. The errors relied upon by the appellant are the rulings of the court in admitting evidence offered on behalf of the respondent.
Section 16 of the statute under which the proceedings were had (Stats. 1889, p. 74), provides: “All provisions of the law in reference to the sale and redemption of property for delinquent state and county taxes in force at any given time shall also then, so far as the same are not in conflict with the provisions of this act, be applicable to the sale and redemption of property for delinquent assessments hereunder, including the issuance of certificates and execution of deeds. The deed of the street superintendent made after such sale, in case of failure to redeem, shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity of all proceedings hereunder, and of title in the grantee.”
1. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the [518]certificate of sale. The objection by the appellant that the certificate is insufficient to prove any of the previous steps in the proceedings is ineffectual, as the statute does not give, nor does the respondent claim, such effect from its introduction. It was relevant and competent evidence of the official act of the officer in making the sale, and was admissible for the purpose of showing that it conformed to the requirements of section 3776 of the Political Code, and contained the matters which by section 3786 of that code were to be recited in the deed.
2. A witness on behalf of the defendant testified that on the 26th of November, 1890, the land was vacant and unoccupied, and that, on that day, on behalf of the defendant, he posted in a conspicuous place upon the property a notice by the defendant that on the 27th of December he would apply for a deed of the property, and that on the next day.he filed with the superintendent of streets an affidavit of such posting, together with a copy of the notice posted. This affidavit and the copy of the notice were also introduced in evidence. The notice contained the matters required by section 3785 of the Political Code to be given in order to authorize the execution of a deed.
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)