Home/California Court of Appeal/Davis v. Day

Davis v. Day

277 P. 741, 98 Cal. App. 557
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 27, 1929
DocketDocket No. 6735.
StatusPublished

This text of 277 P. 741 (Davis v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Day, 277 P. 741, 98 Cal. App. 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

*558 PARKER, J., pro tem.

tem.suit to quiet title after a motion for a new trial had been denied. It will be unnecessary to describe the property involved other than to state that the said property comprises certain city lots in the city of Oakland. For the purposes hereof the lots may be described as lots 6, 10, 11 in block 2 as said lots appear upon that certain map entitled “Map of the R. F. Knox Tract, Brooklyn, Alameda County, California, etc.,” filed October 9, 1880, in the office of the county recorder of Alameda County. The separate claim of the defendants as affecting the property need not be recited inasmuch as plaintiff makes the same claim to each lot and if plaintiff prevails as to one it will determine his right to all. The sole point involved in this appeal is as to the validity of . certain tax proceedings and the effect of a deed following. Willis M. Arnett on and before the first Monday in March was the owner of all the property involved. The assessment-book of the property of Alameda County for the year 1919 shows the assessment of the property involved as fol7 lows:- The taxes due under this assessment, or claimed to be due, were not paid and upon such failure of payment of taxes the property was listed as delinquent upon the delinquent rolls of Alameda County. Such listing upon the delinquent roll is in the manner as follows, to wit:

*559

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

Related

Gottstein v. Holmes
264 P. 310 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Marysville Woolen Mills v. Smith
175 P. 13 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Jacoby v. Wolff
247 P. 195 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Davis v. Pacific Improvement Co.
70 P. 15 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Knobloch v. Associated Oil Co.
148 P. 938 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Stege v. City of Richmond
228 P. 461 (California Supreme Court, 1924)
Baird v. Monroe
89 P. 352 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Terrill v. Groves
18 Cal. 149 (California Supreme Court, 1861)
People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Mining Co.
39 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1870)
People v. Clunie
11 P. 775 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Cadwalader v. Nash
14 P. 385 (California Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 P. 741, 98 Cal. App. 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-day-calctapp-1929.