Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-06
TAX DEEDS.
A Supreme Court Decision
on the Subject.
Some Points of Value to ALI
Real-Estate Owners.
The Validity of the Deeds Strongly
Sustained.
An Opinion Which Goes Into the Matter
Very Exhaustively-The Points
Considered and the Con-
clusiOns.

illusions.
The following decision was received
yesterday from the supreme court in
the case Of William Rollins, respondent,
vs.. John A. Wright, appellant.
1t is Of especial interest, as it settles
number of points about tax deeds,
and virtually decides numerous cases
which have been sent up from this city.
The opinion in substance is as follows:
This action is to quiet title to LOTS in
San Francisco. Plaintiff claims under
tax collectors deeds and all the ques-
tions in the case are as to the validity
of such deeds.
There are four tax deeds: Three
based on sales made in 1882 for the
assessments made in 1881. for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1882, to A. f.
Hinchman; the fourth on sale made
in 1880, for an assessment for the fiscal
year ending June 80, 1880.
The deeds were read in evidence,
against defendants objections, which
were as follows, SO far as urged on this
appeal:
First-The certificates OF sale were
not filed in the Office of the county re-
cOrder.
Second-No notice of the application
for the deeds, under section 1885 of the
political code, was given.
Third-The assessment and sale were
not for any fiscal year.
Fourth - No title or claim of title was
shown in A. +. Hinchman, to whom the
property was assessed.
And it is further claimed here, al
though such points were not made in
the court below, Q) That defendant is q
(2), The sale was under local statute
the constitution, and is therefore void.
The respondent contends that the tax
deeds are conclusive upon all these
points.
Section 1886 of the political code pro-
vides that the deed shall recite, and that
the recitals shall be primary (prima
facie) evidence of their truth, eight emu
merated facts:
1, the assessment; 2. equalization 8,
tax levy; 4. non-payment of tax; 5, the
property was regularly sold 6, has not
been redeemed; 7, grantor was proper
officer to execute deed and, 8, when
sold to pay tax ON personally, that
owner of the property was liable for the
tax.
The next section makes the deed
Conclusive evidence of the regularity
OF all other proceedings from the assess
ment by the assessor inclusive up to the
execution of the Decd"
The first of the above sections has the
effect as to matters required to be re-
cited in the deed, to shift the burden of
proof, but leaves the owner of property
free to establish by proof that such facts
do not exist. As to other matters the
deed is made conclusive.
We see no valid objection to these
provisions. Ii the property owner held
property which was liable to taxation,
which had been properly assessed, for
tax duly levied, which had not been
paid, but allowed to become delinquent,
and the property had been sold as re-
quired by law and not redeemed, there
is no hardship in providing that he
shall not take advantage of mere irregu
larities, which did not affect his sub
stantial rights, to avoid the effect of his
delinquency.
The matters which he is expressly au-
thorized to dispute enable him to raise
every point essential to a just defense.
Justice does not require that he should
be entitled to interpose pure technical
tiles.
These stringent provisions were made
to enable the state to collect its revenues,
and property owners owe the duty to
the government to pay taxes when due,
and are not deprived of any substantial
~ 70 4 hnx toI -, - 10
tense to such matters as show that they
do not justly owe the tax.
We cannot do better than to adopt the
language of the supreme court of the
United States, in De Treville va. Smalls,
9S .. g., 525, upon similar point:
tied by the express provisions of the
that it should only be affected as evil
sale, by establishing the fact that the
that the property had been redeemed.
to the tax every substantial right. 1t
due. His land was charged with it
Wy uhO oCO VI CoHSIOdS, AOt NY
the commissioners, and the proceed
ing ending in sale was simply a
mode of compelling the discharge of his
duty. ALI his substantial rights were
assured to him by the permission to
show that he owed no tax, that his land
was not taxable, that he had paid what
was due, or that he had redeemed his
land after sale. He was thus permitted
to oassert everything of substance
thing except mere Irregularities.
1--WE do not feel at liberty to disre-
gard the plain intention of the acts of
congress. We are not unmindful of the
numerous decisions OF state courts which
have construed away the plain meaning
of statutes providing for the collection
of taxes. disregarding the spirit and
often the letter of the enactments, until
of late years the astuteness of judicial
refinement had rendered almost inope-
rative ~ legislative provisions for the
sale eE land for taxes. The con-
sequence was that bidders at tax
sales, if obtained at all, were mere
speculators. The chances were greatly
against their obtaining a title. The