Case Name: LOOMIS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881-10
Citations: 59 Cal. 456
Docket Number: No. 7,990
Parties: LOOMIS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
[No. 7,990.
Department Two.]
LOOMIS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Refunding of Taxes Illegally Collected — Tax Sale — Purchase Money.—Action against a county to recover purchase money paid by plaintiff at a void tax sale.
Held: Section 3804, Pol. Code, does not apply to a case of this kind. There is no rule of law authorizing the plaintiff to recover.
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. Sepulveda, J.
S. G. Hwbbell, for Appellant.
Plaintiff’s claims are “ taxes illegally or erroneously collected.” (Pol. C., § 3804.)
Thomas B. Brown, for Respondent.
The claims set up by plaintiff are not for “taxes per centum or costs illegally or erroneously collected.” The amounts paid by plaintiff were as the purchase prices of the lands sold. The doctrine of caveat emptor applies. He had full notice of any defect, if any, in the assessments or proceedings, or could have obtained it. He was a mere volunteer, and can not recover back what he voluntarily paid out. (Harper v. Rowe, 53 Cal. 233.)

Opinion:
Myrick, J.:
This action was brought to recover of the County of Los Angeles an amount of money alleged to have been paid by plaintiff under the following circumstances:
The Tax Collector sold at public auction, to plaintiff, for non-payment of State and County taxes, certain real property assessed to one Acuña, plaintiff, as purchaser, paying the amount of the taxes (which amount was by the Tax Collector paid into the County Treasury), and a certificate was duly issued to plaintiff. It subsequently appeared that the assessment was fatally defective, and plaintiff took no title to the lands attempted to be sold. He now brings his action to recover of the county the amount paid by him, basing his. right to recover on Section 3804, Political Code. That section does not apply to a case of this kind. There is no rule of law authorizing the plaintiff to recover.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Sharpstein and Thornton, JJ., concurred.