Bruschi v. Cooper

Decided June 7, 1916

California Court of Appeal · decided 1916-06-07

Irrigation Act — Certificate of Sale and Deed — Erroneous Recital of Name of Person Assessed — Void Deed. — A certificate of sale and a tax deed made pursuant to proceedings had under the Irrigation Act of 1897 (Stats. 1897, p. 254) are both invalid under the provision of section 35 requiring the assessment-book to specify the name of the person assessed, section 45 requiring the certificate of sale to state the name of the person assessed, and section 48 requiring that “the matter recited in the certificate of sale must be recited in the deed,” where the name of the person assessed appeared on the assessment-book as “D. Brusehie,” and in the certificate and sale as “D. Bruscia.” Id. — Name of Person Assessed — Recital in Deed. — The provision of section 48 of the Irrigation Act that “the matter recited in the certificate of sale must be recited in the deed” includes the “matter” that the deed shall contain the name of the person assessed, when known. Id. — Tax Deed as Conclusive Evidence — Power of Legislature.— While the legislature can make a certificate of sale or tax deed conclusive as to matters which are in their nature nonessentials, it has not the power to make such documents conclusive as to any of the essentials of listing, valuation, apportionment or notice. Id. — Taxation—Listing of Land for Assessment — Statement of Name of Owner. — The listing of land for assessment necessarily means that the name of the owner, if known, and a description of the property assessed must be “correctly stated.” Id. — Tax Deed as Conclusive Evidence — Proceedings Included. — The provision of section 48 of the Irrigation Act making the tax deed conclusive evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings from the assessment to the deed means all the proceedings other than those as to which the deed by said section is made prima facie evidence. Id. — Date op Sale — Misreoital in Certificate — Effect of. — Under section 45 of the irrigation law providing that the collector must make out in duplicate a certificate dated on the day of sale stating (when known) the name of the person assessed and the time when the purchaser will be entitled to a deed, a certificate of sale dated March 3, 1906, instead of February 20, 1906, the day of sale, is not void, where it is stated therein that the property may be redeemed within twelve months from the former date, which is stated as the date of sale.

Relies on Henderson v. De Turk

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-06-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1943

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The petition for a rehearing of this cause in the supreme court is denied.

¶2Nothing 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].

¶3Melvin, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.