Skip to main content
· 10/1/1890

Landregan v. Peppin

Citations

  • 86 Cal. 122
  • 24 P. 859
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 984

Syllabus

<p>Taxation—Assessment of Real Property—Mistake in Name of Owner —Tax Deed, —Under section 3628 of the Political Code as amended in 1880, no mistake in the name of the owner or supposed owner of real property can render the assessment thereof invalid; and the assessment' to M. & Co. of real property standing in the name of M. is binding upon the property assessed, and a tax deed given upon the sale of the property for delinquent taxes is valid, and passes title to the land.</p> <p>Id. — Uiscketionary Power of Assessor. — Under that section, the ascertainment of the name of the owner of real property is a matter with respect to which the assessor has discretionary power, and his judgment or conclusion in regard to it is final, so far as the validity of the tax is concerned.</p> <p>Id. — Notice to Redeem—Review upon Appeal — Error against Respondent— Excluded Evidence.—The sufficiency of a notice to redeem, under section 3785 of the Political Code, which was offered in evidence by the respondent and excluded by the trial court as insufficient, will not be inquired into upon an appeal by the opposite party, as the appeal does not bring the excluded evidence before the appellate court.</p> <p>Id. — Recital of Notice in Deed — Discrepancy in Amount of Taxes — Validity of Tax Deed.—A tax deed to land conveys no title where it affirmatively appears therefrom that the notice from the purchaser to the owner required by section 3785 of the Political Code (as amended March 12, 1885) notified the owner that the land had been sold for a smaller amount of money than it actually was sold for.</p> <p>Id.—Computation of Time — Insufficient Time for Redemption.— Under section 12 of the Code of - Civil Procedure, providing that in the computation of time in which an act provided by law is to be done, ’the first day is excluded and the last included, a tax deed showing that the notice to redeem was served on the twenty-fifth day of July, 18S8, and fixing August 23, 1888, as the time wh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • disbarring lawyer for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.15(I)(a) and (b), 1.15 (II)(a), and 8.4(a)(4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Foote

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.