Legal Opinion

Rostain v. Guggenheim

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 29, 1944No. Civ. No. 3111PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

This is an action to quiet title. There is no dispute as to the facts. On February 2, 1926, a bond was issued as a lien on the property in question pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 730; Peering ’s Gen. Laws 1937, Act 8199, as amended). No payment of principal or interest was ever made on this bond and because of a default on the first payment the city treasurer *128advertised and sold the property in question and on September 2, 1927, issued a certificate of sale to the predecessor of the defendant Alexander Construction Company.

Municipal taxes on this property levied by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. AddiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Campbell v. WoolnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Monheit v. CignaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Rostain v. KatzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API