Page images
PDF
EPUB

not issue directing the board of trustees to perform a plain express duty provided by statute. The method of delay, whether by dilatory action in the board or setting the election for a remote date, under the rule declared in Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 382, appears to be immaterial. We take it that the law declared in that case is applicable here. That the matter may be heard effectively upon its merits, it is deemed best that the demurrers be sustained for the reasons above indicated. Demurrers sustained.

We concur: ALLEN, P. J.; SHAW, J.

(3 Cal. App. 662)

LANTZ v. FISHBURN et al. (Civ. 196.) (Court of Appeal, Second District, California. May 29, 1906. Rehearing Denied by Supreme Court July 23, 1906.)

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - STREET IMPROVEMENTS - ASSESSMENTS--ENFORCEMENT -SALE OF LAND-TITLE OF PURCHASER.

One alleging title to lots under sales by the city treasurer on default in payment of an installment due on bonds issued on a street improvement assessment and deeds issued thereon, in pursuance of St. 1893, p. 33, c. 21, prescribing a system of street improvement bonds, etc., must affirmatively establish a strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

2. SAME-SALE OF LAND FOR NONPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT.

Act Feb. 27, 1893, § 5 (St. 1893, p. 36, c. 21), provides that the city treasurer may sell land to pay delinquent assessment bonds, as provided for the collection of delinquent taxes. Held, that where the place of sale of lots by the city treasurer on default in payment of an installment on a bond issued on a street improvement assessment was given in the notice of sale as "at the easterly door of the county courthouse," and it did not appear that this was "the front of the courthouse." or that any resolution of the board of supervisors had been passed prescribing "the front door of the courthouse" as the place of sale, as required by Pol. Code, § 3768, then in force, the sale was invalid. 3. SAME.

Act Feb. 27, 1893, § 5 (St. 1893, p. 36, c. 21), provides that the city treasurer may sell land to pay delinquent assessment bonds, as provided for the collection of delinquent taxes. Held, that where the notice of redemption from a sale of a lot by the city treasurer on default in payment of an installment on a bond issued on a street improvement assessment, required by Pol. Code, & 3785, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1895, did not conform to the requirements of the law, and a duplicate of the notice was not filed with the county recorder, as required by that section, as amended by St. 1891, p. 134, c. 121. a deed founded on such proceedings was invalid.

4. SAME.

Act Feb. 27, 1893, § 5 (St. 1893, p. 36. c. 21). provides that the city treasurer may sell land to pay delinquent assessment bonds, as provided for the collection of delinquent taxes. Pol. Code, § 3776, prior to the amendment of 1895, required the certificate of sale to state the time when the purchaser should be entitied to a deed. Section 3785, prior to the amendment of 1895, provided that the purchaser of property sold for delinquent taxes must, 30 days previous to the expiration of the time for redemption, or before he applied for a deed. serve on the owner of the property purchased a notice stating when the right of redemption would expire or the

purchaser would apply for a deed, and that the owner should have the right of redemption indefinitely until such notice should have been given and deed applied for. Held, that a certificate of sale of a lot by a city treasurer on default in payment of an installment on a bond issued on a street improvement assessment, that the purchaser would be entitled to a deed on a day named on giving notice of application therefor, but, failing to recite that the right of redemption would have then expired, was fatally defective.

Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; N. P. Conrey, Judge.

Action by H. P. Lantz, as administrator of George Locke, deceased, against J. E. Fishburn and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying their motion. for a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

J. L. Murphey, for appellants. Charles Lantz, for respondent.

SMITH, J. This is a suit to quiet title, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal from the judgment, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

The complaint is in the usual form, alleging title in plaintiff's testator, Geo. Locke, at the time of his death, and subsequent title in his estate. The original title of plaintiff's testator is admitted. But defendants in their answer allege title in the defendant Rheinschild, deraigning title (in the second defense set up in the answer) under sales of the two lots in controversy by the city treasurer upon default in payment of the first installment due on bonds issued upon a street assessment for the improvement of Bridge street in the city of Los Angeles, and deeds thereon issued. They also set up in a third defense, as a claim against the land, a bond issued upon a street assessment of the same lots for the improvement of the crossing of Echandia street with Bridge street; and, in a fourth defense, an alleged estoppel in pais is pleaded.

It appears from the findings that the specifications of the work under both assessments were the same as those involved in Stansbury v. White, 121 Cal. 433, 53 Pac. 940, Chase v. Treasurer, 122 Cal. 540, 55 Pac. 414, and Chase v. Scheerer, 136 Cal. 248, 68 Pac. 768, in which cases the assessmentsand in the last two cases the bonds thereon issued-were on that account held to be void. Accordingly, in the briefs originally filed, it was assumed by the attorneys of both parties, on the authority of those decisions, that the assessments and bonds herein involved were void, and the argument was confined exclusively to the plea of estoppel. On this issue the findings of the court are adverse to the appellants, and are, we think, justified by the evidence; nor do we think the facts alleged, or those shown by the evidence, sufficient to constitute an estoppel. But in an amended brief filed by the appellants our attention has been called to the decision in the

late case of Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 350, 80 Pac. 81, which, it is claimed, conclusively establishes the validity of the bonds here involved. In that case the specifications involved were substantially similar to those involved in the cases cited, and it was held that by effect of the curative provision of section 4 of the "act to provide a system of street improvement bonds," etc. (St. 1893, p. 36, c. 21, § 4, last sentence), the bonds there in question were valid; and this decision must be taken as the final expression of the Supreme Court upon the points there involved, and upon the same points where involved in the present case. It must be assumed, therefore, that the validity of the bonds in this case was not affected by the defects in the specifications as supposed by the counsel on both sides. But it still remains for us to inquire whether there were other defects in the proceedings of a nature to affect the validity of the bonds, or the validity of the deeds issued on the Bridge street assessment.

On the latter point, it is clear that the terms of the curative provision in question have no application, and that, assuming the bonds to be valid, the validity of the deeds must depend upon the conformity or nonconformity of the proceedings of the treasurer with the provisions of the law as prescribed in section 5 of the act cited (St. 1893, p. 36. c. 21), and in section 3765 et seq. of the Political Code, therein referred to; and on this point it is to be regarded as settled law that, to give validity to the deed, it devolved upon the defendants to prove affirmatively a strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Shipman v. Forbes 97 Cal. 574, 32 Pac. 599; Gwynn v. Dierssen, 101 Cal. 565, 566, 36 Pac. 103; Merced Co. v. Helm, 102 Cal. 159, 36 Pac. 399; Miller v. Williams, 135 Cal. 183, 67 Pac. 788; Baird v. Monroe (Cal. App.). This, with regard to several of the proceedings necessary to give validity to the sale, the appellants failed to do; and as to some it affirmatively appears that the law was disregarded. Thus the place of sale giv en in the notice of sale was "at the easterly door of the county courthouse in Los Angeles county." But it does not appear that this was "the front of the courthouse," or that any resolution of the board of supervisors had been passed prescribing "the front door of the courthouse" as the place of sale, as required by the provisions of section 3768 of the Political Code, then in force. Again, from the finding of the court it appears, with regard to one of the lots, that the notice of redemption required by section 3785 of the Political Code as it stood prior to the amendment of 1895-did not conform to the requirements of the law; nor, in the case of either lot, was a duplicate of the notice filed in the office of the county recorder, as required by the provision cited as amended

1 See note at end of case.

91 P.-52

in 1891. St. Cal. 1891, p. 134, c. 121; Kirk v. Rhoads, 46 Cal. 403; Ramish v. Hartwell, 126 Cal. 446, 447, 58 Pac. 920. Again, by section 3776 of the Code, it is required that the certificate of sale must state "the time when the purchaser shall be entitled to a deed." But the recital upon this point in each of the certificates states the time to be "on the 21st day of June, 1901, upon giving notice of application therefor," though by the provisions of section 3785 it is expressly provided that "the owner of the property shall have the right of redemption indefinitely until such notice [i. e., the notice prescribed] shall have been given and said deed applied for." The term of redemption should therefore have been described as the concurrent happening of this event, and of the expiration of the year. The law requires, not merely that the fact of notice of redemption shall appear, but also that a recital of the fact shall be contained in the certificate, and upon the failure of either of these requirements the certificate and the deed thereon issued are void. Cases cited in Baird v. Monroe (Cal. App.) supra. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the sales under which the defendants claim title were void, and that the finding that the plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of the land cannot be disturbed.

But it is found, also, and adjudged, that the bonds themselves set up in the defendants' answer are void; and it remains to consider how far these findings and the corresponding judgment can be sustained, and in this regard the case is as follows: The proceedings for the assessment of Bridge street and the issue of bonds thereon are set forth in detail in the second defense of the answer; and this is the case also with regard to the proceedings for the assessment of Echandia street and the bonds thereon issued, which are set forth seriatim in the third defense. Upon the issues thus raised. the court finds that all the allegations of the answer as to the proceedings, from the passage of the ordinance of intention down to and including the ordinance of intention to issue serial bonds, and the failure of the owners of three-fourths of the frontage to elect to take the work, are true; and it is also found that the bonds were issued as alleged, but "are wholly void," etc. All the other allegations and denials contained in defendants' answer are found not to be true; and it is thus in effect found that none of the proceedings required by law in the improvement of a street, and the assessment of property therefor, from the making of the contract to the return of the warrant, inclusive including the actual performance of the work-were in fact taken. All that appears from the findings therefore is that, after the usual precedent proceedings, the contract for doing the work was awarded to the defendant Rheinschild, and that thereupon, without any intervening proceedings

or acts on his part, or on that of the council, the bonds in question were issued to him. The question is thus obviously suggested whether, under the decision in Chase v. Trout, the bonds themselves are to be regarded as conclusive evidence, not only "of the regularity," but also of the actual performance "of all the proceedings" required by the street work act subsequent to the ordinance of intention. To this question there would seem to be but one answer. If there was in fact no contract, no work done, and no assessment, warrant or demand of payment, there was no tax due or lien therefor for which bonds could be issued, and for the Legislature to declare that the issue of a paper in the form of a bond should be conclusive evidence that these essential proceedings had been taken would seem to be beyond its competency, nor do we find anything in the decision in Chase v. Trout inconsistent with such a conclusion. But, however this may be, it appears from the evidence in the bill of exceptions-which was received without objection and not contradicted-that there was in the case of each improvement, a contract, an actual performance of the work, an assessment, with warrant, etc., and demand of payment, and return, and other matters negatived by the general finding of the court; and, indeed, there seems to have been no dispute as to the existence of these facts. We are therefore almost forced to the conclusion that the general finding of the court that all allegations of the complaint, other than those expressly found to be true, were untrue, was the result of inadvertency, and that it did not intend so to find; and, however this may be, the finding is clearly unsupported by the evidence.

It follows that a new trial must be had, but, with regard to the further proceedings in the case, there are other points to be adverted to. Whatever may be the effect of the provision of section 4 of the bond act, making the bonds referred to "conclusive evidence of the regularity of * proceedings,"

it applies only to the proceedings "previous to the making of the certified list of all assessments unpaid, etc., and of the validity of said lien up to the date of said list." But it is only upon the receipt of this certified list from the street superintendent that the treasurer can issue the bonds; and we cannot make out from the finding of the court whether it intended to find that the list was not made as alleged, or the contrary. It is also provided in section of the act that if notice from the owner of the land, accompanied with the affidavit and certificate prescribed, be given to the treasurer that "he desires no hond to be issued," then "no such bond shall be issued"; and it is alleged in the answer, with regard to each of the assessments, that such notice was not given. On this point the general findings of the court may be construed as negativing this allegation, but there is no specific finding, and

we are not satisfied that the court intended so to find. Upon another trial the findings should be made more definite on these and other points.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

We concur: GRAY, P. J.; ALLEN, J.

NOTE. The following opinion of the Court of Appeal, by Smith, J., was reversed by Supreme Court, in 89 l'ac. 352:

The suit was brought to quiet title to a tract of land described in the complaint as: "Lot five (5) in block 'K' of the Pellissier tract, in the city of and county of Los Angeles, state of California, as per map recorded in book 15, page 70, miscellaneous records of said county. The judgment was for the defendant; and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. It appears from the stipulations and facts shown by the record that the plaintiff's testator was owner of the land in controversy and died seised of the same, and that the plaintiff is now entitled to maintain his action, unless his testator's title was divested by the deeds appearing in the record, which are a tax deed from the tax collector to the state of California of date July 6, 1900, for the taxes of the year 1894, followed by a deed of date July 20, 1901, from the tax collector purporting to have been made upon the authorization of the controller, to one Monroe, whose title is vested in the respondent, and a deed of date July 24, 1903, froin the street superintendent of the city of Los Angeles on a street assessment to the respondent himself. The latter deed, it is claimed by the appellant, shows on its face that it was made in a proceeding under the general street law of March 6, 1889, and not under the charter, under which the proceeding should have been taken (Byrne v. Drain, 127 Cal. 663, 60 Pac. 433); and, the point not being contested by the respondent. it will be assumed to be well taken. As to the tax deed, it is claimed by the appellant that it is void on its face for the following reasons: (1) It does not recite "the time when the right of redemption had expired." or, "the amount for which the property was sold"; and (2) that the original assessment was void. As to the first

point of appellant, the recitals referred to were required by section 3785 of the Political Code as amended March 28, 1895 (St. 1895, p. 328, c. 218), which is the law governing the case, and we are of the opinion that the deed fails to comply with the statute in this respect. As to the time of redemption the deed refers to a certificate of sale bearing date July 3, 1895, and stating that, unless the real estate was redeemed within five years from the date of the sale, the purchaser would be entitled to a deed on the 5th day of July, 1900. This is all that is said in the deed, and we think it was an insufficient compliance with the statute (Simmons v. McCarthy, 118 Cal. 622, 50 Pac. 761); and the more especially because at the time of the sale there was no law providing for the issuance of a certificate. This, indeed, had been provided for by sections 3776 and 3777 of the Political Code, but these sections had been repealed February 25, 1895 (St. 1895, p. 19. c. 11); and, though there was at the same session an attempted amendment of the repealed sections (St. 1895, pp. 27, 328, c. 218), this, under the express provisions of the Political Code, was of no effect (Pol. Code, § 330: Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 Pac. 658). Nor was this defect remedied by the curative act of 1903. St. 1903, p. 63, c. 59; Harper v. Rowe, 53 Cal. 233, 237. As to

"the amount for which the property was sold," all that is said in the deed is after a statement of the amount of taxes, $2.92-that the land was sold to pay said taxes"; but it is not said that that was the amount for which it was sold, which was the requirement of the law. Simmons v. McCarthy, supra. In the deed, and in the assessment therein referred to, the land is simply described as being situate in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, "in. Pellissier Tr.. lot 5, blk K." which was obviously insufficient. Pol. Code. § 3650; Knott v. Peden, 84 Cal. 299, 24 Pac. 160: Labs v. Cooper, 107 Cal. 656, 40 Pac. 1042; Miller v. Williams, 135 Cal. 183, 67 Pac. 788.

Some of the above cases are criticized in the opinion of the lower court, and it is apparently admitted that the decision of the court "is in advance of many adjudicated cases"; the views of the court being based apparently upon the more liberal character of the existing system under which the delinquent lands are conveyed to the state and every opportunity for redemption granted to the delinquent owner. Hence it is concluded that the reason for the rule has ceased, and with it the rule itself. We agree with the court in its views as to the liberal character of the existing system (which, in our opinion, cannot be too highly commended); but we do not think that this furnishes any ground for abandoning the well-settled principle governing the exercise of statutory powers for conveyance of lands against the will of the owners. That principle is that, in the exercise of such powers. the statutory provisions must be strictly observed; and, though this principle has, in our opinion, rightly been carried to extreme lengths, and to what may be thought, by those who do not look to the grounds upon which the decisions rest, to lengths even absurd, yet we know of no class of decisions that more favorably exhibit that regard to rights of property which has always characterized our law and distinguished our courts, and, indeed, it may readily be conceived what havoc and deyastation to property rights would have occurred but for this conservative conduct of the courts.

There is another question, however, presented by the record, which it will be necessary to dispose of. The plaintiff, we think, is entitled to judgment according to the prayer of his complaint, but only upon the condition of paying to the defendant the amount paid by him in the purchase of the land, or so much as may be found by the court to be due the state to entitle the plaintiff to redemption. Couts v. Cornell (Cal.) 82 Pac. 194, and cases cited. The cases cited are, indeed, such as were formerly recognized as cases in equity; but it has been held that an action to quiet title under section 738, Code Civ. Proc., is of the nature of a bill in equity, and the equitable maxim has been applied, that he who seeks equity must do equity. Polack v. Gurnee, 66 Cal. 266, 269, 5 Pac. 229, 610: Booth v. Hoskins, 75 Cal. 271, 17 Pac. 225; De Cazara v. Orena, 80 Cal. 132, 134, 22 Pac. 74: Benson v. Shotwell, 87 Cal. 53, 60, 25 Pac. 249: Brandt v. Thompson, 91 Cal. 458, 462, 27 Pac. 763. We, however, do not base our opinion exclusively upon these decisions, but upon the broader ground that, under the Code provisions, the distinction between legal and equitable forms of action has, except for certain special purposes, been abolished, and that under our practice the maxim. where the case requires it. will apply equally to legal as to equitable actions. Grain v. Aldrich, 38 Cal. 514, 99 Am. Dec. 423. This, it seems, has been held by the English courts since the passage of the judiciary act, but whether under the express provisions of that act, or upon other grounds, we do not know. Snell's Equity. 1 et seq. But we think the same result must follow under the provisions of our Code.

The judgment and order appealed from are re

versed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

We concur: GRAY, P. J.; ALLEN, J.

(29 Nev. 469) STATE ex rel. DAVIS v. EGGERS, State Controller. (No. 1,728.)

(Supreme Court of Nevada. Oct. 5, 1907.) STATES-APPROPRIATIONS-NECESSITY.

Laws 1907, p. 408. c. 185, created the state industrial and publicity commission, and provided (section 3, p. 409) that the chairman should receive from the state treasury $2,500 a year in monthly installments, and that the members of the commission should be allowed necessary mileage and traveling expenses on affidavit of the members claiming the same that the mileage and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in official business, etc. Held, that the act constituted a sufficient appropriation of the salary of the chairman; but, as it failed to prescribe any maximum expenditure for traveling expenses, the act was void in so far as it authorized payment of such expenses by the state, under Const. art. 4, § 19, providing that no money shall be drawn from the state treasury except under appropriations made by law.

Petition for mandamus by the state of Nevada, on relation of Sam P. Davis, against J. Eggers, state controller. On demurrer to the petition. Overruled. Overruled. Writ granted.

Thompson, Morehouse & Thompson, and Jas. R. Judge, for plaintiff. The Attorney General and R. C. Stoddard, for defendant.

TALBOT. C. J. Under an act approved March 29, 1907, entitled "An act creating and establishing a state industrial and publicity commission, prescribing their duties and compensation, providing funds to be used for the accomplishment of their objects, and other matters relating thereto" (Laws 1907, p. 408, c. 185), the petitioner was appointed chairman of the commission designated. Section 3 (page 409) of the act is as follows: "The chairman of such commission shall receive, as compensation for his services, to be paid out of the treasury of the state of Nevada, the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars per annum, payable in equal monthly installments, upon the first day of each and every month, and the other two members shall serve without compensation; provided, however, that the chairman and other members of such commission shall be allowed necessary mileage and actual expenses of travel incurred in traveling upon the official business of the commission when it shall appear from the affidavit of the members, or one of the members claiming the same, that such mileage and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred, that the same is just, and was incurred while traveling upon the official business of the commission; affidavit to be filed with the State Treasurer before any allowance can be made for such mileage or expenses." As the questions involved have been submitted upon a demur

rer, the facts stated in the petition may be considered admitted. The petitioner alleges that he entered upon his duties on the 1st day of May, 1907, and acted as chairman of this commission during that month; that by the provisions of the act he is entitled to receive out of the state treasury a salary of $2,500 per annum, to be paid monthly; that he is also entitled to receive and be paid out of the state treasury mileage and expenses actually incurred while traveling upon official business of the commission; that his compensation fixed and allowed by the act for the month of May, 1907, is the sum of $208.33, and his mileage and expenses necessarily and actually incurred in the performance of his official duty for that month amount to $16.50, for both of which sums the state became indebted to him on the 1st day of June; that the provisions of the act make appropriation by the Legislature for these sums in accordance with the provisions of section 19, art. 4, of the Constitution of this state; that these claims had been duly audited and allowed by the state board of examiners; that upon presentation and demand the respondent, as state controller, has refused, and still refuses, to draw his warrants for these claims, notwithstanding there is ample money in the state treasury. A writ of mandate requiring the issuance of such warrants is demanded. The general appropriation bill contains no provision for the payment of the salary or expenses of the petitioner. It may have been drawn previous to the act designated, which was introduced near the close of the session of the Legislature. The question involved is whether the language of section 3 quoted above constitutes an appropriation for the payment of petitioner's salary and expenses, and whether their payment is by this act, or otherwise, authorized.

Section 19 of article 4 of the Constitution provides: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." A similar provision is found in the federal Constitution and prevails in many of the states. In the organic acts of others the word "specific" precedes and modifies the word "appropriations." We will be aided by looking to the history, purpose, and reason for these constitutional enactments before examining decisions of a number of courts bearing on the proposition presented. As the fruit of the English revolution in 1688, which sent the king to Versailles and changed the succession to the throne, this safeguard had its origin in the British Parliament when the people of Great Britain, to provide against the abuse by the king and his officers of the discretionary power with which they were vested, demanded that the public funds should not be drawn from the treasury except in accordance with express appropriation made by Parliament. This prohibition is so wise that it has become the fundamental law of nearly every

state in the Union. It has been well said that this provision was obviously inserted to prevent the expenditure of the people's treasure without their consent. State v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 272, 33 Pac. 125, 24 L. R. A. 266. Its purpose is "to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity in the disbursements of the public money." 3 Story's Commentaries, § 1342. "All the expenses of the government being paid by the people, it is the right of the people, not only not to be taxed without their own consent, or that of their representatives freely chosen, but also be actually consulted upon the disposing of the money. Such a provision forms a salutary check, not only upon the extravagance and profusion in which the executive department might indulge itself, but also against any misappropriation which a rapacious, ambitious, or otherwise unfaithful executive might be disposed to make. In those governments where the people are taxed by the executive no such check can be interposed. The prince levies whatever sum he thinks proper and would deem it sedition against him and his government if any account were required of him and in what manner he had disposed of any part of them. Such is the difference between government where there is responsibility and where there is none." Tucker's Commentaries; Thomas v. Owens, 4 Md. 225. This inhibition for keeping the expenditure of the public moneys more nearly in control of the people may be compared with the one requiring all bills for revenue in Parliament to originate in the House of Commons, and in Congress in the House of Representatives. Under our advanced, protective system, no officer or individual has control of the public moneys. The provision that no moneys shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law requires that their expenditure shall first be authorized by the Legislature, which stands as the representative of the people. No particular words are essential so long as the will of the lawmaking body is apparent. It has been held in a number of decisions that the word "appropriate" is not indispensable. It is not necessary that all expenditures be authorized by the general appropriation bill. The language in any act which shows that the Legislature intended to authorize the expenditure, and which fixes the amount and indicates the fund, is sufficient. It is customary to create a legislative fund at the beginning of the session, and separate acts appropriating money are usual at every ses

sion.

It is provided by an act approved March 8, 1879 (Laws 1879, p. 108, c. 102), entitled "An act authorizing the payment of salaries of officers fixed by law":

Section 1: "All state officers whose salaries are fixed by law shall be entitled, from and after the passage of this act, to receive same on the first of each calendar month; pro

« PreviousContinue »