Stuart

Action to quiet title. If the tax deed held by the plaintiff is invalid by reason of any of the irregularities mentioned by the defendant the judgment should be reversed, otherwise it should be affirmed.

1. The defendant calls to our attention the fact that the auditor did not annex his affidavit to the assessment-book of 1913 which contained the assessment on which the tax deed was based. He claims that the omission was fatal and he cites Political Code,' section 3732, and Moyer v. Wilson, 166 Cal. 261 [ 135 Pac. 1125 ], The sale involved in this action took place July 2, 1914. The validity of the sale is to be determined by the law as it stood on the latter date. (Teralta Land etc. Co. v. Shaffer, 116 Cal. 518 [ 58 Am. St. Rep. 194 , 48 Pac. 613 ].) At that time the curative act, chapter 24 of the Statutes of 1915, was in force. 'If the alleged defect existed it was cured by the express terms of that statute if the statute did not “apply new and more- onerous conditions to the right to redeem than those which existed when the sale was made.” (Teralta Land etc. Co. v. Shaffer, supra.) A most careful reading of the act of 1915 does not disclose that it imposed any “new…