Fox v. Townsend
Before: Angellotti, Henshaw
Synopsis
Taxation—Assessment-Roll—Absence of Dollar-Mark—Invalidity of Sale and Deed.—An assessment of land, which shows on the face of the assessment-roll that there was no dollar-mark or other mark, sign, word, or abbreviation, or explanation to indicate what was meant by the figures in the column designed to show the value of the property and the amount of the taxes, is void, and a sale for delinquent taxes and deeds made thereunder are likewise void.
Id.—Certificate of Sale to State—Repeal of Law Requiring—Recitals of Deed.—Upon the repeal of section 3776 of the Political Code, providing for a certificate of sale for land sold to the state for delinquent taxes, the provisions of section 3786 of that code, to the effect that the deed to the state must contain a recital of the matters contained in the certificate, became nugatory.
Id.—Time of Redemption—Error in Recital—Curative Act of 1903. —An imperfection in a deed to the state of land sold for delinquent taxes, in stating the time when the right of redemption had expired, was cured by the confirmatory act oi February 28, 1903.
Id.—Corrected Deed to State.—When a tax-deed to the state does not conform in its recitals to the facts, the tax-collector is authorized to execute a second and corrected deed, but he has no power to execute a second deed which misstates the facts respecting any proceeding prior to its execution. Such a deed would be void.
Id.—Presumption as to Regularity of Corrected Deed.—If an order of the board of supervisors, as provided for by section 3805b of the Political Code, were necessary to authorize the tax-collector to execute an amended tax-deed, it will be presumed, in support of such a deed, that it was' executed by that officer under proper authority and direction.
Id.—Corrected Deed after Conveyance by State.—It is no objection to a corrected tax-deed to the state that it was executed after the state had parted with its title to the land.
Id.—Deed Based on Assessment of Mortgage Interest.—Under section 4 of article 13 of the constitution, a tax-deed, which described the property assessed and conveyed as a mortgage interest in a specifically described tract of land, is sufficient to convey the land described.
Id.—Failure to Note Delinquent Sale on Subsequent Assessment.— Where land had been properly sold to the state for delinquent taxes for the year 1894, the failure of the fiscal officers to stamp upon the assessment-book for the year 1895 the fact that it had been sold for taxes and the date of the sale, as required by section 3801 of the Political Code as enacted in 1895, did not affect the validity of such sale.
Id.—Notice of Delinquent Sale.—The words “sold to the state,” stamped on the assessment for the subsequent year, were sufficient to impart notice of such sale to the fiscal officers and also to the owner of the land.
Opinion — Henshaw
HENSHAW, J. Plaintiff sued to quiet title to certain lots of land, claiming title thereto under and by virtue of certain [53]tax-sales to the state of California and deeds from the state of California to him. The court gave its decree against the claim of plaintiff, and he appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
One of the lots in question was lot 19 in block 26. The assessment of this lot, upon which the tax-sale was based, shows that there was no dollar-mark, or other mark, sign, word, abbreviation or explanation on the assessment-roll to indicate what was meant by the figures in the column designed to show the value of the property and the amount of the taxes. This being the case, the assessment was void, and the sale and. deeds made thereunder are likewise void. (Hurlburt v. Butenop, 27 Cal. 54; Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 611; People v. S. F. Sav. Union, 31 Cal. 132; People v. Hastings, 34 Cal. 571; Emerick v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 444, [27 Pac. 356].) This omission appearing in the assessment itself necessarily invalidates the proceedings. In this respect this case is to be distinguished from the case of Carter v. Osborn, 150 Cal. 620, [89 Pac. 608], where the omission of the dollar-mark or sign was in the delinquent list and not in the assessment. The decree as to lot 19, block 26, was, therefore, correct.
The other lands whose titles are in controversy are lot 17, block 20; lot 17, block 24; and lot 11, block 5. The assessments of these lots were in all vital respects the same as the assessment set forth and discussed in Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560, saving only that instead of being described as “in Pellissier Tr.,” they were described as “in Electric Railway Homestead Assn. Tr.” As in Baird v. Monroe, a map of the Electric Railway Homestead Association, recorded in book 14, page 17, of Miscellaneous Records of the County of Los Angeles, was introduced in evidence, which map showed the location of the lots in controversy. The assessments, therefore, in this respect, are identical with that discussed in Baird v. Monroe, and, aided by the map which was introduced in evidence, the descriptions contained in these assessments were “sufficient to identify” the land. (McCullough v. Olds, 108 Cal. 529, [41 Pac. 420].)
Certain propositions are urged against the validity of the deeds made by the tax-collector to the state. Section 3776 of the Political Code provides for a certificate of sale and declares what that certificate must contain. Section 3785 pro
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)