The record-union., 1894-03-10
One OF ELI MAYO'O TAX DEEDS.
1t is Knocked Silly by Decision Of
Judge Johnson.
A Sixteen ear-Old Case Concluded.
so Far as the Superior Court
is Concerned.

Wallace Judgment for the defendant"
There was filed by the court, however.
quite long decision giving a history of
the case, which will be found Of more or
less interest and Importance to many
Sacramentans, as it deals with one of the
numerous class of tax titles that have cut
quite figure here in real estate transac-
tions and cases in litigation.
The property in question is the east
half of lot in the block between NJ and
n, Fourth and Fifth streets. 1t was origi-
nally owned by Ex-Governor Burnett
but was made by him a gift to Miss
Mary a. Wallace, daughter of Judge w.
T. Wallace, Miss Wallace being relative
of Burnett.
In the course of time-some sixteen or
more years ago-the lot was sold for the
taxes and was bought by Eli Mayo, who
transferred it to his sister, the plaintiff IN
this action. In the meantime Mayo re-
moved from the property dwelling.
The question of title was at that time
pending in the courts, and Judge benson
found Mayo guilty OF contempt OF court,
fined him 500, and likewise sentenced
him to Jail for thirty days.
After all these years the case has been
decided, as above stated, in favor of the
defendant, and Judge Johnson gives his
reasons in the following
OPINION OF THE COURT:
The plaintiff relies upon several chains
of title based upon tax deeds, DEGREES
and adverse possession, while the de-
iendant claims to hold the Sutter title.
The first chain submitted by plaintiff is
by tax deed dated March %, 1867, to
Eli Mayo, and from Mayo to plaintiff by
deed dated March 2S, 1878; but prior to this
time, in December, 1875, Mayo conveyed
this property to one j. II. Reeves.
The second claim of title is by deed
Mayo for city taxes of 1868, and from
Mayo to plaintiff, as above stated.
1t will be observed that in both of these
chains Mayo had parted with his title to
Reeves, and had nothing to convey to
plaintiff.
The third chain relied on by plaintiff i s
upon q Sheriffs deed for street assess
ment. In January, 1888, plaintiff became
the purchaser under this title, as Mayo
does not appear III any OF the lntermedl-
ate conveyances, and 1t becomes neces-
sary to examine the proceedings upon
which it is based.
1t appears that the original return of
the Sheriff who sold the property was de-
fective; the sale and return was made in
| 1864. In 1873 the eX-Sherif, who was
| Sheriff in 1864, goes into the late District
| Court, and, upon an eX parte affidavit,
asks leave to amend his return made
| fourteen years prior; no notice was given
of the application for leave to amend to
any person whatever.
| The court permitted the eX-Sheriff to
amend his return; deed was executed
upon such amended return under which
| plaintiff claims to hold, as above stated.
The question is raised to this proceeding
as to whether the court had power to per-
NIT the return to be amended upon eX
parte, proceedings.
If tae deed depends upon the original
return, it is bad, because it failed to show
that the least parcel of land was sold
which would pay the tax. Hence the
effort to correct the return. Between the
time of the sale and filing the original re-
turn and the time the court permitted the
eX-Sheriff to amend his return, the prop
erty in question changed hands. The
property at the last date had been vested
in one Theodore LIE Roy. An officer hav-
| ing once made his return, it would seem
that his duties close, and all authority
and control over the matter are extin-
guished. Especially, he has no right to cor
rect his return where the rights Of inno-
| cent parties are affected.
| If he has made mistake in his return
than is provided for mistakes-that is. a
resort to court of equity. In order to
receive relief from such court, all par
ties in interest should be allowed to APP
pear and resist such correction if they
wish.
| Perhaps the return may have been cor
| rect in the first instance. Memories are
often treacherOus, and had the parties in
| interest have had the opportunity, per-
| hans tbaU UOnl6 baUa haap a hla tn show
that after fourteen years the Sheriff might
have forgotten just what actually took
place on that day. Fourteen years after
| the sale the ex-Sheriff makes an affidavit.
and upon an ex parte hearing the court
permits him to amend his return; pursu-
ant thereto he does amend and executes a
| deed, all on the same day. All of which.
| to my mind, is contrary to reason and
| justice and the weight OF authority.
The deed was not offered in evidence
only the record, from which it appears
that the signature to the deed is affixed in
this manner: lie Roy, Th." That is, the
surname precedes the Christian name, or
its abbreviation. 1t appears in the body
| Of the deed that his name is Theodore LIE
Roy. know Of no law that prescribes
Just how man should subscribe his sig
nature. 1t leaves that to individual taste.
| He acknowledged to the Notary that he
executed the instrument. He could not
| have executed it without signing it, and
l take it that the n otary's certificate that
| he did acknowledge the execution of the
! instrument settles the question as to the
| signature being that of Theodore LIE Roy.
| / must, therefore, come TO the conclu-
| sion that the tax deed set out In the third
chain of title is invalid.
The fourth chain of title which plaintiff
relies upon to sustain her title is in the
nature of an estoppel. That is, one James
| Finney, who held the title under the tax
deed just referred to, obtained a decree
quieting title between himself and the
administrator of the estate of LIE Roy,
who died in 1882. In 1850 he conveyed
| the premises to defendant. If such be
| the fact, LIE Roy'S administrator and his
legal representatives had no title which
could be affected by the decree; but
plaintiff disputes the validity of the deed
| executed by LIE Roy in 1880 to defendant.
The fifth chain of title is of the same
nature as the last; Eli Mayo, after execut-
ing the deed to Reeves and before execut-
ing the deed to plaintiff, obtained a de-
cree against Wallace to quiet title; but,
| here again the parties were unfortunate
| in the party defendant. The decree was
given in July, 1887. In May, 1876, Wal
lace conveyed to LIE Roy. LIE Roy, who
was not party to the suit, held the title
at the time of Mayo's decree, and could
succeeded to LIE Roy's title, took it free
from the consequences of the decree.
On May 10, 1876. LIE Roy began an ac-
ton against j ohm III. Reeves in the United
States Circuit Court fer the possession OF
SAID lot Such proceedings were had in
said action that on August 8, 1878, judg-
menJ was entered in said action in favor
of LIE Roy and against Reeves for posses
sion of the lot in controversy. In 1878
the United States Marshal placed the
agent of defendant in possession of this
land by virtue of writ of execution
issued out of the Circuit Court upon said
| Judgment.
Plaintiffs counsel contends that de-
fendant not being a party to that action,
| nlaintiff was not affected by this proceed