Grimm v. O'Connell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for defendants, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Daingereield, X The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 1, McKinstry, J.:
1st. The assessment for the fiscal year 1872-3 was void. (Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646; Wills v. Austin, 53 Id. 179; Harper v. Rowe, Id. 233.)
2nd. The Court below found that the demanded premises were assessed for taxes for the years 1874-5 and 1875-6 to one Charles Grimm; further, that “ the Tax Collector’s deeds upon *523those assessments, (which afterward became delinquent, etc.) recited that the said land had been assessed to said Charles Grimm, and all owners or claimants known or unknown,” etc. If the assessments were as recited in the deeds, they were…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Houghton v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Kelsey v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Boardman v. BourneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Grotefend v. UltzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Sterling v. WelcomeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Simmons v. McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Z. Russ & Sons Co. v. CrichtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- City of San Luis Obispo v. PettitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hopkins v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.