The herald., 1897-02-16

In the suit of William Hayes VS..
Pierre Leon Ducasee ct al, Judge YORK
yesterday handed down an opinion
wherein he passed upon the defense
raised in challenging the tax deed made
by the tax collector. The suit was
brought to quiet title to property held
| under a deed made by the tax collector
| of Los Angeles county.
The criticisms of defendants were
| substantially as follows:
| First. That the tax deed should recite
the power of the tax collector. Second
That the tax deed does not state that
notice was given that the property
| would be sold. Third. That the tax
| deed does not state that the sale was
commenced on the day mentioned in the
| delinquent list, lie, notice of sale.
Fourth That it does not appear in the
tax deed where the sale of the property
| for taxes was made. That the state
ment in the deed that the property de-
| scribed was offered for sale at public
| auction, and that at such sale n. P.
Campbell was the purchaser of the whole
| thereof, is a plain assertion that the
| property was offered as whole; and
| that bidders made their offers for the
entire parcel. Fifth. That the inser-
| ton in the deed of copy of the certif-
| cate of sale does not satisfy the legal
| requirement that recital of the matters
stated in the certificate of sale was made
| in the deed
In reviewing a. great length the va
rious legal steps taken Judge York
holds that there was regularity in all the
proceedings. Apparently the only
thing in the way of plaintiffs success"
says the court, lis an assumption that
the court will so criticise the proceed
ings leading up to and in the issuing of
the tax deed by the tax collector that
some avenue may be opened to avoid the
loss by defendants of a valuable prop
erty for merely nominal sum- But 1t
is not the office of the court to annul
constitutional laws or remove their as
perities. 1t is the office of the court to
ascertain the intention of the legislative
body in making the law and enforce that
intention whether the court agrees
with the legislature in the policy of the
law or not. The court does not stand
between the people and those whom they
have empowered to make their laws
Laws which the people do not approve
must stand until repealed, and the more
accurately they are construed by the
courts the sooner will the people act in
their repeal
without expressing an opinion
whether the law under consideration
was wise or unwise. impoitic or oppres-
sive. 1t clearly appears that the legisla-
ture. in enacting that law. was endeav-
~'if'S ~ Wv away Will Tie HN pSrcrlIlCal
construction of previous laws under
which construction a tax title had be-
come a by-word, and the state had been
Obliged to become the unwilling pur-
chaser of large amount of property Of
Tered for sale by tax collectors for nom
payment of taxes. Under the con-
struction of the law relating to tax
sales owners of property who had
promptly paid the taxes on their own
property were compelled to contribute
TO supply the deficit resulting from nom
payment of taxes by others. and from a
failure to obtain bids for the property
charged with delinquent taxes at tax
collectors sales. The Intention of the
legislature in amending the revenue
laws so as to read as above quoted OBJ
Viously was to give buyers at sales for
taxes more confidence in the validity Of
the proceedings and to enable tax col
lectors to sell more lands to individual
buyers and lessen the amount of prop
erty necessary for the state to purchase.
The laws which have been made subse-
quently to those under consideration
cannot. of course. throw any light on the
legislative intent in the making OF the
laws We are considering.
The law is harsh in its operation.
But ample avenues to escape from that
harshness have been given the defend
ants They had ample opportunity to
pay their taxes before delinquency Af-
ter delinquency and before the sale a
notice of sale was given, and, by their
neglect to pay, they allowed the prop
erty to be sold. After the sale they
were notified that a tax deed would be
applied for. After the service of that
notice on October 18th, 1895, they had
until December 18th following to redeem
the land from the tax sale by the pay
ment of the tax, interest and costs-and
they failed to redeem.
Such careless disregard of the pro-
ceedngs for the collection of the taxes
due from their property shows a con-
tempt for the Law which. fear, has been
encouraged by too strict construction
of revenue laws by the courts. We
have, however, advanced to the position
that we should regard substance and
not shadows in the construction of laws
designed to raise revenue for the sup
port of the government, and to adjust
the burden of such revenue proportion
ately upon all property subject to taxa
ton
The tax deed in evidence complies
substantially with the law. 1t contains
all the statements of fact which the law
requires. II is not to be held void be-
cause ii does not contain more than the
law requires. The plaintiffs title to
the land in question having been shown
to have been conveyed from defendants
to him by the tax collectors deed and
the proceedings of the tax collector not
having been impeached, it follows
that plaintiff Is the owner of
said property, and that he should
have his title to the property queted
as against the claims of defendants
Let judgment be entered accord
ingly"