Brady v. Dowden
JAMES BRADY v. MICHAEL DOWDEN
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Sharpstein, J.:
The recital in the deed, “ That the said property was assessed for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1878, for city taxes, at eight dollars and ten cents to unknown owners, and to all owners and claimants, known and unknown,” makes it void, under the decisions of this Court in Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666 , and Grimm v. O'Connell, 54 id. 522. If the name of the owner was known it should have been assessed to him. If not, it should have been assessed to unknown owners. (Pol. Code, § 3636.)
In this case the Assessor, according to the recital in the deed, did not follow this plain and simple direction, but assessed the property to owners and claimants known, without naming them. As we construe the opinion of the Court in Grimm v. O’Connell, 54 Cal. 522 ; the plaintiff is concluded by the recital in his deed, as to whom the property was assessed. He could not be permitted to prove aliwade that the property was not assessed as therein recited.
*52 It is-unnecessary to consider the alleged defects in the proceedings which preceded the execution of the deed. The deed being void, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Myrick, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.