Bell v. Fee Title Co.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 439 Complaint to quiet title was filed herein by respondent, claiming to own the property in controversy by title acquired through a deed from the county tax collector. Issue was joined and after trial before the court judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was presented and denied, and this appeal was taken upon a document which appellant contends is a bill of exceptions, although it is entitled "Statement of the Case." Respondent insists that it is in no sense a bill of exceptions, and that its informality, and the irregularity of attendant proceedings, render it ineffectual; that it is nothing more than a statement of the case, that it is not signed, and that it must therefore be disregarded, and the decree affirmed. [1] Were we confronted merely with the distinction between a bill of exceptions and a statement of the case, such objection would not merit serious consideration, since when the ends of justice require it those terms are regarded as synonymous. ( Dennis v. Gordon, 163 Cal. 427 [ 125 P. 1063 ].)…

The petition for rehearing is denied. One of the grounds principally relied upon by the appellant is that no sufficient description of the property designating in what school district it is located was contained in the tax proceedings, and especially that the map received in evidence is indefinite as to location of the property in question. It is true that it is nowhere indicated upon the map as to whether or not the tract represented by it is located in the city of Pasadena or in the Pasadena city school district. In addition to what is said upon this point in the opinion filed by this court on the 29th of October, 1924, the following considerations are additional grounds upon which we conclude that the assessment was not invalid by reason of any such defect. The notice of delinquency was headed: "In Pasadena City. Delinquent Tax List." Upon this list appears the following: "Leonida Ducommun, N. R. Hooper Bros. Sub., Lot 27 $8.00." In the case of Pasadena School Dist. v. City of Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7 [Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1039, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 892, 134 P. 985 ], it was held: "The Pasadena School District embraces all the territory within the limits of the City of Pasadena and a…