Quinn v. Kenney

47 Cal. 147
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
DocketNo. 3,886
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 47 Cal. 147 (Quinn v. Kenney) 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
Quinn v. Kenney, 47 Cal. 147 (Cal. 1873).

Opinion

By the Court:

The plaintiff was the owner of only the undivided seven twenty-fourths of the block bounded by TJ and Y, and [150]*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 the property sold belongs to minors or persons under legal disability, they shall have until six months after said disability is removed to redeem said property by paying the whole amount of the judgment/' etc. The right of redemption comes entirely from the statute, and it is subject to all the limitations and conditions therein imposed.

The Court found that the land had been conveyed by the Sheriff to Kenney, that the title still remained in him, and had not been incumbered by him. That finding will estop all the defendants in any future litigation which may arise. It was therefore proper that Kenney should convey to the plaintiff the title to the lands of the plaintiff, which he— Kenney—had acquired by virtue of the Sheriff’s sale and deed, and there is no other mode in which the redemption could be effected. A decree that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem his lands, or declaring that the Sheriff’s deed shall not operate as a conveyance of the plaintiff’s interest, would be no more effectual than Kenney’s deed; and it would not bind persons not. parties to the suit, who may have acquired titles to or liens upon the plaintiff’s interest in the lands while held by Kenney.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. Anderson
433 P.2d 183 (California Supreme Court, 1967)
Krassner v. Veneman
206 Cal. App. 2d 299 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Peterson v. Johnson
249 P.2d 17 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Sutter-Yuba Investment Co. v. Waste
136 P.2d 11 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
Lachmund v. Johnson
117 P.2d 920 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
White Pine Manufacturing Co. v. Morey
112 P. 674 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1910)
Dorris v. Sullivan
27 P. 216 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Kentfield v. Hayes
57 Cal. 409 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
Eldridge v. Wright
55 Cal. 531 (California Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Cal. 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-kenney-cal-1873.