Gates v. Lindley

California Supreme Court Nov 1, 1894 No. No. 15578Published

Before: Belcher, Fitzgerald, Haven, Haynes, McFarland, Vancliee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a landowner cannot strengthen their title or extinguish a timber reservation by allowing the land to be sold for delinquent taxes and subsequently purchasing the tax title, as such a purchase is deemed a payment of taxes.

Issues

Whether a landowner can acquire a new title to their own land by purchasing a tax deed resulting from their own failure to pay taxes.
Whether a tax deed purchase by the landowner extinguishes a prior reservation of timber rights in the landowner's deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He could not, by neglecting to pay them and permitting the land to be sold in consequence of such neglect, add to or strengthen his title by purchasing at the tax sale himself, or by subsequently buying the tax title from a stranger”

“His purchase is deemed one mode of paying the taxes.”

“Plaintiff’s title is therefore the same as though he had each year paid the taxes, and he holds the same under his deed in which the timber was reserved.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Haynes, C. This action was brought against defendant, Philips, to recover stumpage for shingle timber sold to Philips. Defendant, Mary Lindley, intervened, claiming stumpage for the timber taken off a portion of tlie land.

Philips admitted the contract with plaintiff, and that there was due somebody four hundred and twenty-eight-dollars and eight cents; that he owed the plaintiff of [452]this sum three hundred and thirty-three dollars and forty-four cents, and that the timber taken off the portion claimed by Mary Lindley amounted to ninety-four dollars and sixty-four cents, and that he was ready to pay the whole to whomsoever the court found was entitled thereto.

The cause was submitted to the court upon agreed findings covering all the facts, from which the court drew the conclusion of law that plaintiff was entitled to recover three hundred and thirty-three dollars and forty-four cents, and Mary Lindley ninety-four dollars and sixty-four cents, and entered judgment accordingly, from which the plaintiff appeals.

One Osborne filed his application to purchase this land from the state in'1858. He conveyed by quitclaim deed and assignment of his certificate to Whitmore and Dix, and in June, 1867, they in like manner conveyed to Elihu Lindley, then the husband of the intervenor. In 1872 Lindley in like manner conveyed to Thorp, reserving in the deed, however, all the timber on a certain portion of the land particularly described therein. On January 27, 1873, Thorp’s grantee conveyed to the plaintiff and assigned the state certificate, the deed containing the same reservation expressed in Lindley’s deed to Thorp, and on October 2,1873, the state patented the lands to plaintiff.

Mary Lindley is the widow of said Elihu Lindley, and to whom he gave all his property by will.

On September 20,1873, O. J. Gates and wife executed and delivered to J. B. Hamilton a grant deed to said lands, with the same reservation, and on September 24, 1878, Hamilton conveyed to Whitlow.

From the year 1873 to and including the fiscal year ending June 1,1879, the property was assessed to Hamilton, who paid all said taxes except for the year last mentioned.

On March 3, 1879, the tax collector sold the whole of the property to J. 0. Dinsmore, and on April 5, 1888, Dinsmore received a tax deed. No reservation of the

Gates v. Lindley

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief