Daily Los Angeles herald., 1878-11-01
Supreme Court Decisions.

of general interest:
By the Court Filed Oct, 81, 1873.
HARPER
rowe. y; ''''.
The court below erred in admit
ting in evidence the decree in tho
tax suit, without the production OF
the judgment roll. II u party at
fempts to avail himself of a decree
as an adjudication upon the sub
ject matter, or as u link in his
chain Of title founded on judicial
sale under the decree, he must pro.
ducs the judgment roll, so that,
amongst other things, the court
may determine, on an inspection
Of the entire roll, whether the
court which rendered the decree
had jurisdiction of the subject mat
ter. 1t is true the purchaser at q
his title, on the Judgment, execu-
tion and Sheriff's deed; but he
must produce a valid judgment, and
the well established rule is that the
method Of proving the Judgment
to be valid Ia by the production of
the roll, on au inspection of which
it may be determined whether the
court had the necessary jurisdio-
tion of the subsequent matter.
Greenleaf's Ev., 9 5l1. 2 Phillips
Ev., p. 1888. Com. Dig. tit Ev. Ca.
4 p. S5. Cowen & Hilps Notes
to Phil. Ev. Part 2) Note ll9, p.
27s.
The present case furnishes a
striking illustration of the necessi.
ty of the rule. The act of May II,
1862. (Statutes 1862, p. 52O) (Which
was applicable to these proceed
ings) provides for an action in rem
against the real estate alone; in
which case the complaint and
summons must describe the real
estate sought to be charged, as is
specifically required by he statute.
These are jurisdictional facts with
out which a Judgment in rem could
not be rendered against the real
estate. In such case, the subject
matter OF the action is the enforce
ment of the lien for taxes against q
particular parcel of land described
in the complaint, and not against
some other tract. The tract so de-
scribed is treated by the statute as
u defendant, for the purposes of the
action; and tho court would have
no jurisdiction to render " judg-
meDt against s9me other tract as a
defendant. Hence the necessity of
producing the judgment roll, so
that, by inspecting it, the court
may determine whether the land
against which the judgment was
rendered was described in the com.
plaint and summons.
On the facts found by the Court
the sale made by the sheriff as fax
collector on the 10th day of March,
1874, for delinquent State and
county taxes for the fiscal year
1874, and the sheriff Is deed
founded on the sale, were absolute.
ly void for the reason stated in
Wiles vs.. Austin, decided at the
last July term of this court. In
Houghton VS. Austin At Cal. GIG, 1t
was decided that this attemp pied
levy by the State Board of Equali-
cation of State tax5s for the fiscal
years 1928 and 1874 was void,
and there was, consequently, no
valid levy of State taxes FIR those
years. The sale h aving been made
for this void tax as we'll es for the
county tax, the whole sale was
void and the sheriff's deed . null
ity. The new section 3S11, added
to the Political Code, by tho Act of
March "a, 1874, had not then been
passed and of course has no applica-
tion to that sale.
The plaintiff also attacks the
sale of February Oath, 1879, on the
ground that one of the items for
which the land was sold was the
sum OF seventy cents, for filing and
recording the duplicate certificate
Of sale filed in the recorders office,
which the court below held to have
been improperly collected, and it
therefore adjudged that as the sale
was for sum in excess of that au-
thorized by law, the certificate Of
sale was imperative to vest any
| title or interest in the purchaser.
We agree with the Court below
that this item was Illegally col
lected and that the sale was for
that reason void. Treadwell vs
Patterson, 81 CAL, 637.
The defendants insist, however,
that the amount collected was not
excessive, because under section
1903 of the Political Code the tax
collector had authority to include
interest on the delinquent tax at
the rate of two per cent per month
from the time it was first delin-
quent. But that section has no
application to a sale made by the
tax collector to collect delinquent
tax In the first instance. If the
tax remains finally delinquent af-
ter the tax collector has exhausted
all means for Its collection, it may
possibly be subsequently collected
In some other method provided by
law; In which event the interest is
to be added, to compensate for the
long delay, and as an incentive TO
the tax payer to make a voluntary
payment and thus stop the interest.
We are therefore of opinion that
his sale was void, and that the
/ purchaser under 1t acquired no
tile.
The court below, however, held
asa matter Of law, that, as the
{ purchasera at the sales of March 10th,
VA, and February Oath, 1876, had
aid the taxes for which the land
was sold, he acquired, under Sec
tion SI79 of the Political Code and
under the curative acts OF the Leg
islature of March 2Sth and March
30, 1874 (statutes 1874 PIP 748. SS3)
valid lien on the lands sold, for
the amount so paid by him in
satisfaction Of the taxes, and the
Court further held that the plaintiff
was not entitled to the relief de-
manded, except on condition that
he first refunded to the purchaser,
the sums so paid. Section 877a of
fho D1l;ttaal SNoHn nrouiIaa that