Bruschi

The petition for a rehearing of this cause in the supreme court is denied. Nothing in the opinion should be deemed to hold that the correct name of the owner is so essential to a tax assessment or a certificate of tax sale that an error therein as to the name of the owner cannot be cured by the section making the deed conclusive evidence of the regularity of the assessment and certificate. The decision can be supported on the ground that the conclusive evidence clause does not extend to defects in the deed itself, as was held in Henderson v. De Turk, 164 Cal. 296 , [ 128 P. 747 ]. Melvin, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

This case was before the court and decided January 29, 1916, reversing the judgment of the lower court. A rehearing was granted and further light on the case invited, particularly upon the validity of the assessment, certificate of tax sale, and the tax deed involved in the action. In discussing the questions presented we found what seemed to us a very close analogy between the general code provisions for assessments and delinquent tax sales and the provisions of the Irrigation Act. Following the decisions of the supreme court as we understood them, we were constrained, with some reluctance, to hold the title asserted by defendants to be invalid. In reviewing the opinion heretofore filed in the case, respondents contend, first, that section 35 of the Irrigation Act (Stats. 1897, p. 254) does not require that "the property must be assessed to the owner." The section does provide that the assessor "must prepare an assessment-book with appropriate headings, in which must be listed all such property within the district, in which must be specified, in separate columns, under the appropriate head: (a) the name of the person to whom the property is assessed (if the name is not known to…