Anderson v. Hancock

California Supreme Court
Anderson v. Hancock, 61 Cal. 88 (Cal. 1882)
1882 Cal. LEXIS 546

Anderson v. Hancock

Opinion of the Court

The Court :

The description of the premises in the tax deed appears to us to be sufficient.

It does not appear by the record that there were any erasures in the deed. The copy set out in the bill of exceptions discloses none, and there is no evidence that there were any. The motion for a new trial may have been granted on the ground that no erasures appeared upon the face of the deed.

Order affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
JOHN ANDERSON v. JOHN HANCOCK
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Tax-deed—Description of Land by Name—Erasdp.es.—In an action to quiet title the plaintiff offered in evidence a deed made to Mm by the tax collector of the county in which the description of the land was as follows: “situate, lying and .being within the County of San Bernardino and described thus: An undivided one half interest in and to that certain piece, parcel, or tract of land containing one thousand two hundred and eighty acres, situated in Rancho Muscupiabe, known as the Sylvester Bryant tract, bounded and particularly described as follows: Bounded north by the base of mountains, or north boundary of said Rancho Muscupiabe; east by range line between township No. one north and ranges three and four west, S. B. M.; on the south by that part of San Bernardino Rancho owned by Holmes & Golding; on the west by lands owned by Severence Brothers, the said one half interest containing six hundred and forty acres more or less, with improvements on the same, was by said Win. Davies.” The deed was objected to on the grounds (among others) that description of the land was insufficient and that certain alleged erasures had not been accounted for. The Court excluded the deed, but afterwards granted a new trial. Held: The description is sufficient. It does not appear by the record that there were any erasures in the deed.