San Francisco & Fresno Land Co. v. Banbury

The Court. When this case was decided in Department the following opinion was rendered by Mr. Justice Harrison: “In June, 1892, the plaintiff, as the owner and successor in interest of sixty-seven lots of land in McPherson’s addition to the town of McPherson, formerly in the county of Los Angeles, but now in the county of Orange, sought to redeem them from a sale for delinquent taxes made to the state of California March 12, 1889, and for that purpose tendered to the defendant, Banbury, as treasurer of the county of Los Angeles, the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars and sixty cents. It is conceded that this amount of money was sufficient to effect the redemption, unless the sum of three dollars for each lot, amounting to two hundred and one dollars, for giving the notice of an intention to apply for a deed and the affidavit therefor, fixed as a fee for giving such notice by section 3785 of the Political Code,should also have been tendered. The county auditor, in his estimate of the amount to be paid for redemption, included this item in the certificates issued by him under the provision of section 3817 of the Political Code, and the treasurer refused to accept [131]the amount tendered, or to give to the plaintiff the certificates named in said section. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action to compel the treasurer to accept the sum tendered as above, and to give to it the triplicate receipts prescribed by the aforesaid section 3817. The cause was tried in the court below and judgment rendered for the defendant, from which, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, the plaintiff has appealed.

“ Several questions are discussed in the briefs of counsel, but the conclusion which we have reached upon one of these questions renders it unnecessary to determine the others. In May, 1892, the defendant House, acting under the direction of the state controller, gave the notices referred to in section 3785 of the Political Code, and filed his affidavit thereof with the tax-collector of Los Angeles county. These several notices were signed ‘ state of California, by R. F. House, agent,’ and in the affidavit of service filed with the tax-collector House stated that he was the ‘ agent for the purchaser of the property described in the foregoing notice.’ House also testified at the trial that prior to the date of giving the notice ‘ he had been appointed by the state of California, through the state controller and attorney general, and was authorized to serve notices to cause the redemption of property sold to the state for taxes.’