Legal Opinion

Stuart v. Chapman

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1927No. Docket No. 5979PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

Action to quiet title. If the tax deed held by the plaintiff is invalid by reason of any of the irregularities mentioned by the defendant the judgment should be reversed, otherwise it should be affirmed.

1. The defendant calls to our attention the fact that the auditor did not annex his affidavit to the assessment-book of 1913 which contained the assessment on which the tax deed was based. He claims that the omission was fatal and he cites Political Code,' section 3732, and Moyer v. Wilson, 166 Cal. 261 [135 Pac. 1125], The sale involved in this action took place July 2, 1914. The validity of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Bateman v. ColganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Teralta Land & Water Co. v. ShafferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Bussenius v. WardenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. Moyer v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Miller v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Knoke v. KnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Behymer v. SchraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Redman v. NewellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Penaat v. GuascoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API