Gramson

Gramson v. Geniella

Good Law
1930 Cal. LEXIS 521·209 Cal. 610·289 P. 817
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 18, 1930Docket No. L.A. 10345.California388 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against him in an action to quiet title to real property in the county of Los Angeles, state of California. The trial court found that the defendant P. 0. Huber was the owner of said property in fee and that the plaintiff had no right, title nor interest therein, except an equity for repayment to him of the sum expended by him for the payment of taxes, penalties and costs in pursuit of the state’s title to the said property. Said defendant paid the amount found by the court to be due to plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed title under a purported tax deed to said property, but the court found said deed to be void “by reason of the fact, among other things, that notice of sale of said property was not given by the tax collector prior to the said purported sale, as required by law. ’ ’

Appellant contends that if such a defect existed in the tax deed, due to a failure to comply with section 3764 of the Political Code, nevertheless, it was cured by the provisions of section 3787 of the Political Code.

The case of Bussenius v. Warden, 71 Cal. App. 717 [ 236 Pac. 371 ], has settled that point against the contention of appellant, and, as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.