Clark v. City of San Diego

California Supreme Court

Clark v. City of San Diego

77 P. 973, 144 Cal. 361, 1904 Cal. LEXIS 700

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 11, 1904

DocketL.A. No. 1246.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 77 P. 973 (Clark v. City of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. City of San Diego, 77 P. 973, 144 Cal. 361, 1904 Cal. LEXIS 700 (Cal. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action to quiet title. As defenses to the action, defendant pleaded the liens for delinquent taxes for the years 1890 and 1893, and prayed that the taxes be decreed valid and subsisting liens upon the property. Admittedly, upon the authority of the City of San Diego v. Higgins, 115 Cal. 170, and Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 506, the right of action for the collection of the taxes according to the statute of 1880, page 136, is lost. The court decreed, under section 2911 of the Civil Code, and upon the authority of Dranga v. Rowe, that the lien of the taxes was likewise lost, and quieted plaintiff's title accordingly. It is here contended that a distinction is to bé drawn between the ease of Dranga v. Rowe and the case at bar, since in the former case the defendant sought affirmative relief that no decree should be rendered quieting plaintiff’s title, except upon payment of the assessed taxes, whereas, in the case at bar, it is asked only that the taxes be decreed to constitute subsisting liens. There is, however, no difference in principle between the cases. Dranga v. Rowe was decided upon the theory that the lien *362 was extinguished, and the trial court was therefore correct in its ruling and decision in the case at bar.

For which reason the judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action to quiet title. As defenses to the action, defendant pleaded the liens for delinquent taxes for the years 1890 and 1893, and prayed that the taxes be decreed valid and subsisting liens upon the property. Admittedly, upon the authority of the City of San Diego v. Higgins, 115 Cal. 170, and Dranga v. Rowe, 127 Cal. 506, the right of action for the collection of the taxes according to the statute of 1880, page 136, is lost. The court decreed, under section 2911 of the Civil Code, and upon the authority of Dranga v. Rowe, that the lien of the taxes was likewise lost, and quieted plaintiff's title accordingly. It is here contended that a distinction is to bé drawn between the ease of Dranga v. Rowe and the case at bar, since in the former case the defendant sought affirmative relief that no decree should be rendered quieting plaintiff’s title, except upon payment of the assessed taxes, whereas, in the case at bar, it is asked only that the taxes be decreed to constitute subsisting liens. There is, however, no difference in principle between the cases. Dranga v. Rowe was decided upon the theory that the lien *362 was extinguished, and the trial court was therefore correct in its ruling and decision in the case at bar.

For which reason the judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P. 973, 144 Cal. 361, 1904 Cal. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-city-of-san-diego-cal-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack