Quinn v. Kenney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Several blocks of land in the city, of Sacramento were assessed separately for taxes in 1868, but were all assessed to one owner. The tax became delinquent, and suit was brought to enforce it, and, on the 20th day of July, 1869, a judgment was rendered against all the blocks directing their sale for the tax.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Several blocks of land in the city, of Sacramento were assessed separately for taxes in 1868, but were all assessed to one owner. The tax became delinquent, and suit was brought to enforce it, and, on the 20th day of July, 1869, a judgment was rendered against all the blocks directing their sale for the tax. An order of sale was issued, and the Sheriff sold all the blocks on the 21st day of March, 1870, for the tax. The land was not redeemed, and the Sheriff, (the Tax Collector), on the 7th day of October, 1870,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The plaintiff was the owner of only the undivided seven twenty-fourths of the block bounded by TJ and Y, and *150Seventeenth and Eighteenth streets, and was not an owner in any other of the blocks included in the tax sale. The Statute of March 31st, 1866 (Stats. 1865-6, p. 607), requires that the person redeeming land from tax sale shall pay the whole amount of the judgment under which the sale was made. But that provision does not authorize a person to redeem any land other than such as he owned when the tax sale was made. The language of the statute is: “Provided further, that when…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Smith v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Kentfield v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- White Pine Manufacturing Co. v. MoreyIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Sutter-Yuba Investment Co. v. WasteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Dorris v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.