Grotefend v. Ultz
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Shasta County. The action was ejectment, and the plaintiff relied upon a tax deed and certificate of sale, from which it appeared that the assessment had not been made to the owners nor to unknown owners, but to “ D. B. Matlock, and to all owners and claimants known and unknown.” Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The Political Code declares (sec. 3628): “ The Assessor must ascertain the names of all taxable persons and all property in his county subject to taxation,” and requires (sec. 3650) that officer to prepare an assessment book, in which must be specified, “ in separate columns, under the appropriate heading, first the name of the person to whom the property is assessed. * * * * By secs. 3635 and 3636 it is provided that “if the owner or claimant of any property is unknown,” the property must be assessed “ to unknown owners.”
The first duty of the Assessor under these provisions is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grogan v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Blatner v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by15 opinions
- Grimm v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Z. Russ & Sons Co. v. CrichtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- City of San Luis Obispo v. PettitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hearst v. EgglestoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Greenwood v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.