Grimm

Grimm v. O'Connell

Good Law
54 Cal. 522
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,499California1,158 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentmckinstry, J.

1st. The assessment for the fiscal year 1872-3 was void. (Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646 ; Wills v. Austin , 53 Id. 179; Harper v. Rowe, Id. 233.)

2nd. The Court below found that the demanded premises were assessed for taxes for the years 1874-5 and 1875-6 to one Charles Grimm; further, that “ the Tax Collector’s deeds upon *523 those assessments, (which afterward became delinquent, etc.) recited that the said land had been assessed to said Charles Grimm, and all owners or claimants known or unknown,” etc. If the assessments were as recited in the deeds, they were legally void. (Grotenfend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666 ; 13 Cal. 609 : 30 Id. 537; 32 Id. 328.)

Sections 3776 and 3777 of the Political Code require of the Collector to execute and deliver to the purchaser a certificate stating, amongst other things, “ when known, the name of the person assessed.” Section 3786 declares : “ The matters recited in the certificate of sale must he recited in the (Collector’s) deed.”

Where the statute prescribes the particular form of the tax-deed, the form becomes substance, and must be strictly pursued, or the deed will be held void. (Blackwell on Tax Titles, p. 366.) If the officer fails to…

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.