The herald., 1893-05-30
THE BRYSON BLOCK TAX CASE,
Judge Van Dyke Gives Judg-
ment for John BrysOn, Sr.
A Sale by the City That Was Not
Final.
The Title Had Not Passed from the OitJ
when the Lot Was Assessed
Tho Law Clearly Laid
Down.

Judge Van Dyke yesterday handed
down rather a long opinion in quite an
important case brought by Attorney
General Hart on behalf OF the state
against John Bryson, sr., and George IL.
Bonebrake.
1t was a proceeding to determine what
amount, If any, should be paid by the
owners OF certain property for redemp-
ton from she state upon certain tax
sale for state and county taxes OF
1898.
The cause was submitted upon an
agreed statement OF facts. The proper
ty upon which the assessment was
claimed to have been made which re-
suited in the tax sale was a fractional
part of lot l, block 2, city, on which the
Bryson block is situated, at the corner
OF Spring and Second streets.
In December, 1886, prior to the assess-
ment OF the property, the city of Los
Angeles was the owner OF the whole of
the lot, and the westerly part was COW
cred with brick buildings; on the east
erlv part were some frame shops occu-
pied by man named Douglas, with the
city's permission. The portion Of the
lot occupied by the frame shops consti-
tuted the promises in controversy.
The assessments of the lots was made
as OF the frat Monday in March, 1887.
September 27. 1886, the city council
paased an ordinance for the sale of the
uncccupied portion OF lot |, being the
premises In controversy. no sale to be
made for loss than 100000. January
10, 1897, a communication was sent to
the council by w. W. Robinson, then
city clerk, that he had, December 23,
1886, sold the lot to John Bryeon for
100000, he being the highest and best
bidder, and that Mr.. Bryson had depos-
tied $1,000 with the city treasurer.
AT the sale Mr.. Bryson stated orally
that he would pay the $4,000 provided
a deed by the city would convey him an
unincumbered title to the property.
Afterwards his attorneys advised him
not TO accept deed, as it might be in
sufficient TO convey the title, unincum-
bered or otherwise, and he declined to
conHummate the purchase unless the
action of Mr.. Robinson was confirmed
by the council and warranty deed
given, and that Judgment in the supe-
rior court should be procured quieting
the title. April IL, 1887, the council
passed such an ordinance, and deed
was given April 18th. decree WAS also
procured that Mr.. Bryson and his asso-
ciates were the owners in fee simple to
the property.
Upon the entry of the decree Mr..
Bryucn paid the city $4,000 and the
$1,000 already deposited
Prior to April II, 1887 neither Mr..
Bryaon nor his associates had anything
to do with the shops on the property oc-
cupied by Douglas.
This assensrpent OF laS7-e9 was to uu-
known owners for the portion OF lot |,
block 2, not occupied by the city. 1t
was assessed for $4,000, and in the de-
linquent list was described as lot l, block
2, "a portion not accepted by the city"
It was sold to the state, March IA, 1888,
and the same description was carried
into the certificate OF sale.
From the agreed facts the questions
for determination were whether Mr..
BryHon was the owner OF the property
March /, 1887, or had any taxable or
assessable interest therein; If e'ws q
the owner or had any aesessable interef t
was the assessment valid or sufficient TO
create lien; was the sale according to
the description in the certificate issued
thereon such sale az the law requires.
Upon the frat proposition ss to Mr..
Bryson's ownership, Judge Van Dyke in
discussing it, holds that tho position of
the attorney general that the transac-
tion OF the final sale related back to and
was mere ratification of the sale OF
December by Clerk Robinson, ia unten-
able. Further, that that sale was with
out authority and void; and the at
tempted ratification of it by the city
council was subsequent to the first Mon
day in March. On that date the city
WAS the owner of the property with un-
encountered title, and was not subject to
taxation.
The court says that the assessor knew
of the transaction with Bryson at the
time of the assessment, and If he knew
of an asseesable interest it was his duty
to ASSESS it in Mr.. Bryson's name.
lie ia satisfied that on the fret Mon
day in March, when the lien for taxes
attached, the city was the owner of the
property, and that Mr.. Bryson had no
title or interest in 1t, and it was there
fore not subject to taxation, and the tax
sale in question is null and void. Judg-
ment 10 given for the defendants.
-------------------------