) On the other hand, a party having no interest in the property, the title to which is affected by a judgment, is not a party aggrieved by the judgment and may not appeal. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, 245 Cal. ) A person who would be bound by the doctrine of res judicata, whether or not a party of record, is a party sufficiently aggrieved to entitle him to appeal. ) The appellant's interest "must be immediate, pecuniary, and substantial and not nominal or a remote consequence of the judgment." (Hamilton v. ny person having an interest recognized by law in the subject matter of the judgment, which interest is injuriously affected by the judgment, is a party aggrieved and entitled to be heard upon appeal." (Estate of Colton, 164 Cal. The county was a party of record the only question is whether it was aggrieved by the judgment.
#SMART SEARCH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CODE#
The court found the tax collector's deed to be ambiguous but construed it as including the three claims.Īt the outset, plaintiff questions the county's standing to appeal on the ground that it is not a party aggrieved by the judgment within the meaning of section 938 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the three mines had been assessed for the years 1936- 1937 through 1941-1942 were sold to the state for non-payment of taxes and were deeded to plaintiff by the tax collector's deed. A representative of the assessor's office testified that because of the school district boundary line, it would have been the normal practice to assess the Montezuma claim as a separate parcel. In 1921 a school district was formed whose boundary ran along the section line between the Toltec and Aztic claims on one side and Montezuma mine on the other. Taxes so assessed, as well as those assessed in subsequent years, have been paid by plaintiff.Ī map, stipulated to be accurate, shows that the Toltec and Aztic mines were wholly within Section 36 of Range 9 East, whereas the major portion of the Montezuma mine was situated in Section 31 of Range 9 East, only a small portion being in Section 36. On July 25, 1963, he added it to that year's roll as an escaped assessment, assessing it to J. Sometime between March and July 1963, the assessor discovered that the Montezuma claim had been omitted from the rolls. Plaintiff acquired the property through a decree of distribution dated June 3, 1960. On the same date he received a certificate of redemption containing the same legal description. "Mines in Section 36 Tp 16 N, R 9 E,-Toltec Min. On July 23, 1942, plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Hans Locke, purchased the above described property at the tax sale and received a tax collector's deed describing the property conveyed as follows: Wood Mines in Sec 36 Tp 16 N R 9E Toltec Min Survey No. On June 5, 1942, a notice of sale of tax delinquent properties was published in which the property in question was described as follows:
90511b in addenda to this list for taxes in 1936" 3992 Tabular Material Omitted To be sold at Public Auction, June 30, 1942. 90511a in addenda to this list for taxes of 1936Īztec Min Sur No. To be sold at Public Auction, June 30, 1942. In 1942 the tax collector published a notice of tax delinquent properties which included the following: From 1923- 1924, the Montezuma claim in question did not appear on the assessment rolls until its escape was discovered in 1963. It appeared that a deed had been recorded conveying a certain "Montezuma claim" to Calzona but the claim so transferred related to an entirely different mine in a different district. For the year 1922-1923, however, the Montezuma claim was assessed, apparently in error, to the Calzona Silver Mining Company. From 1916-1917 through 1921-1922, the claims were assessed to J. The facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal are as follows: It contends that the tax deed through which plaintiff asserts ownership did not include the Montezuma mine. The county appeals from the judgment only as it relates to the Montezuma claim.
#SMART SEARCH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRIAL#
Following a trial by the court, judgment was entered decreeing plaintiff to be the owner of the three claims. The county was the only party to appear and answer the State merely filed a disclaimer as to the Toltec and Aztic mines and the remaining defendants defaulted. Wood (the original patentee), the State of California, the County of San Bernardino, and others. Plaintiff, claiming title under a tax deed, sued to quiet title to three adjacent mining claims known as Toltec, Aztic, and Montezuma.
Walker, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Defendant and Appellant. PETER LEOKE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
0 kommentar(er)
