SUMMONS (Continued). of general jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of such courts in rendering a particular judgment is conclusively presumed to have been acquired unless the record itself shows to the contrary. (Id.) 4. GENERAL RETURN NOT CONCLUSIVE OF SERVICE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ALONE.-Where one is sued in both an individual and representative capacity and process is directed against him in both capacities, a return of service which simply states that process was served upon the defendant personally is not conclusive that such personal service was upon him only in his individual capacity, nor that he was not served in his representative capacity. (Id.) 5. AMENDMENT OF EQUIVOCAL RETURN-PROOF OF CAPACITY IN WHICH SERVICE WAS MADE.-Under such circumstances, the return becomes equivocal or of doubtful inference, and the court could, in support of the judgment actually given, permit its amendment by the sheriff so as to show that in fact service was made on the defendant in the capacity in which the judgment against him was actually rendered, or upon a trial in support of said judgment allow proof of the actual capacity in which the service was made. (Id.) 6. RESORT TO JUDGMENT-ROLL TO SHOW CAPACITY OF SERVICE-CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF JUDGMENT.-Where, from lapse of time or for other reasons, it may be impossible to make proof justifying the court, on motion, in allowing an amendment to the return, or, when the judgment is attacked, to supply evidence of the capacity in which service of process was in fact made in support of the judgment, resort must be had to the entire record, and where it appears there from that the true nature of the action against the defendant was in both an individual and representative capacity and process issued for service upon him in both capacities, these facts, in connection with the return of the sheriff that the service was made upon the defendant personally, warrant the conclusive presumption that in whatever capacity a judgment was rendered against him, service upon him in that capacity was had and jurisdiction to render it acquired. (Id.) SUPERIOR COURT. See Justices' Court; Juvenile Court, 5. SURETY. Sce Mortgage, 7; Office and Officers, 1-9. TAXATION. 1. PROCEEDINGS IN INVITUM.-Tax proceedings are still in invitum, in this state, and to be valid must be in strict accord with statutory requirements. (Secombe v. Louis Phillips Estate, 161.) 2. OMISSION OF DOLLAR MARK FROM ASSESSMENT-ROLL.-An assessment of land, and the tax-sale based thereon are void, if there was no dollar mark or other abbreviation or indication on the assessment-roll showing what the figures meant which appeared in the TAXATION (Continued). column for the statement of the amount of the tax on each lot. (Id.) BY 3. CONCLUSIVENESS OF VALUATION IN ASSESSMENT-DISCRIMINATION ASSESSORS.-The conclusion of assessing officers as to the value of property for purposes of taxation, when honestly arrived at and when not made in pursuance of some fixed rule or general system the result of which is necessarily discriminatory and inequitable, is conclusive on the courts, however erroneous the conclusions of those officers may be. (Los Angeles Gas and Electric Company v. County of Los Angeles, 164.) 4. FRAUDULENT DISCRIMINATION-INEQUALITY OF VALUATION.-A taxpayer may collaterally assail an assessment in the courts where it was fraudulently and corruptly made with the intention of discriminating against him, and for the purpose of causing him to pay more than his share of the public tax, and it has that effect, or where there is something equivalent to fraud in the making of the assessment, producing such effect. This is as true where the injurious effect so produced is caused by inequality of valuation as by any other cause. (Id.) 5. RECOVERY OF TAXES PAID ON EXCESS VALUATION-PARTICIPATION IN FRAUD BY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.-Although the evidence may warrant the conclusion of something equivalent to fraud by the assessor in the matter of the assessed valuation of property, still to enable the owner to recover the tax paid on the alleged excess valuation it must appear that the county board of equalization in some manner participated in the fraud when the matter came before it on application for reduction. (Id.) 6. FUNCTION OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - DECISION EQUIVALENT TO INDEPENDENT VALUATION.-In discharging its duties of equalization such board exercises judicial functions, and its decision as to the value of the property and the fairness of the assessment so far as amount is concerned constitutes an independent and conclusive judgment of the tribunal created by law for the determination of that question, which abrogates and takes the place of the judgment of the assessor upon that question. (Id.) 7. APPROVAL OF ASSESSMENT BY BOARD FINDING AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN VALUATION.-Where the only alleged effect of the fraud of the assessor is excessive valuation of the property of the tax-payer for assessment purposes, the conclusion of the board of equalization that the fair value for such purposes is the amount fixed by the assessor renders the fraud of that officer immaterial, for it is in no way injurious. According to such conclusion of the board, the property is assessed at the same value proportionately as all the other property in the county. (Id.) 8. FRAUDULENT CONDUCT OF BOARD IN APPROVING ASSESSMENT— HONEST ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.-Unless that determination can be avoided, it is conclusive on the question of fairness of the valua TAXATION (Continued). tion, and hence on the question of injury. It cannot be avoided unless the board has proceeded arbitrarily and in willful disregard of the law intended for their guidance and control, with the evident purpose of imposing unequal burdens upon certain of the taxpayers, or unless there be something equivalent to fraud in the action of the board. Mere errors in honest judgment as to the value of the property will not obviate the binding effect of its conclusion. (Id.) 9. APPLICATION FOR REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AS TO FAIRNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF HEARING EVIDENCE.-It is held, upon a review of the evidence, that the findings, in so far as they may be held to imply any lack of opportunity to plaintiff to fully present its case on its application to the board of equalization for a reduction of its assessment, or any lack of diligence or fairness on the part of the members thereof in the hearing, consideration, and decision, or that the action of the board was merely formal, not constituting a hearing of plaintiff's protest, are without sufficient support. (Id.) 10. SALE FOR EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TAXES AND COSTS-VALIDITY OF DEED-BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW SALE FOR EXCESS.-Assuming that tax-deed would be invalidated by proof that the specific an for which the land was declared therein to be sold to the state was twenty cents in excess of the taxes and costs due on the property, the burden of proof is on the party assailing the deed to establish such fact, unless the evidence thereof is furnished by the deeds themselves from the tax-collector to the state or from the state to the purchaser of the land. (Campbell v. Shafer, 206.) 11. RECITALS IN DEED-AMOUNT DUE FOR TAXES AND COSTS-EFFECT OF RECITALS AS EVIDENCE.-There is nothing in the taxation law that requires the deed from the tax-collector to the state to recite the amount due for taxes, costs, and charges or that warrants the court in accepting such a recital in the deed as evidence of the amount due. The law nowhere provides either expressly or by implication, that such deed to the state should be even prima facie evidence of all the facts recited therein. (Id.) 12. RECITALS OF MATTERS NOT REQUIRED BY REVENUE LAWS.-As to the matters expressly required to be recited in such deed by sections 3785 and 3786 of the Political Code, the recitals constitute at least prima facie evidence; as to other matters that may be recited therein the deed furnishes no evidence of the truth of the recitals. (Id.) 13. CERTIFICATE OF SALE-RECITAL OF AMOUNT AND YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. The provision of section 3776 of the Political Code requiring the certificate of sale to state "the amount and year of the assessment" cannot reasonably be construed as requiring it to recite the amount of taxes, or taxes and costs and charges due at the time of the sale. That requirement is the same as the requirement TAXATION (Continued). of section 3785 of that code, that the deed shall give "the assessed value and year of the assessment," and does not refer to the amount of tax, or taxes, costs, etc., due. (Id.) 14. RECITAL OF AMOUNT DUE FOR TAXES AND COSTS-INVALIDITY OF DEED.-The invalidity of a deed to the state for delinquent taxes, on the ground that the land was sold for an amount in excess of the actual amount due on account of taxes, costs, etc., cannot be predicated solely upon a recital as to the amount due in the deed. (Id.) 15. DESCRIPTION IN ASSESSMENT UNCERTAINTY CURED BY EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION.-Standing alone and unaided by other evidence, a description of land in an assessment and in all the tax proceedings, as "In the city of Los Angeles, Main Street Tract, Lot 3, Block A," is insufficient for uncertainty. Such description may be aided and the land intended to be assessed sufficiently identified by uncontradicted evidence that there was in that city only one tract of land known and designated as the Main Street Tract, a map of which was on record in the recorder's office, and that lot 3, block A, was clearly marked and designated thereon. (Id.) 16. SALE BY STATE-MAILING NOTICE TO PERSON LAST ASSESSED POST-OFFICE ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO TAX-COLLECTOR-RECITALS IN DEED-PRESUMPTION.-Where a deed from the state for land acquired by it for delinquent taxes recites that the address of the person to whom the property was last assessed was unknown, and that a copy of the notice of sale by the state was not mailed to him, it must be assumed, in accordance with the presumption of the due performance of official duty, if no address is given on any assessment, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the address of such person was not known to the tax-collector, and that consequently the mailing of such a notice was not required under section 3897 of the Political Code. (Id.) 17. LONG RESIDENCE OF PERSON ASSESSED AT SAME LOCATION.-The mere fact that such person had in fact resided for a number of years at a certain locality in the city in which the land assessed was situated would not be sufficient to overcome the force of this presumption. (Id.) 18. PROPERTY OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CANNOT BE ASSESSED.-An assessment for purposes of taxation levied upon public property of a mandatory or agency of the state, such as a municipal corporation, is void. (Smith v. City of Santa Monica, 221.) 19. PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY STATE FOR DELINQUENT TAXES STATE CANNOT SELL AFTER ACQUISITION BY MUNICIPALITY.-Real property acquired by the state under a sale to it for delinquent taxes cannot be subsequently sold by it under an order of the state controller, if the legal title thereto, excepting such title as the state acquired by the tax-collector's deed, has in the interim become vested in a municipal corporation under condemnation proceedings for a public purpose. (Id.) TAXATION (Continued). 20. STATE TITLE MERGED IN TITLE OF MUNICIPALITY.-When a municipal corporation acquires property under such circumstances, the title which the state takes by the tax-collector's deed is merged into the larger title which the municipality holds under the trusts both for the public as distinguished from the state, and also for the state as the supreme sovereign. (Id.) 21. SALE BY STATE- - NOTICE OF SALE TO PERSON LAST ASSESSED -TAX-COLLECTOR'S DUTY TO ASCERTAIN ADDRESS-OUTSIDE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.-Where real property acquired by the state for delinquent taxes is sold by the tax-collector in pursuance of section 3897 of the Political Code, and the post-office address of the person to whom the property was last assessed fails to appear on the assessment-roll, and is not in fact known to the tax-collector, it is not essential to the validity of the sale that such official should resort to outside sources of information to learn the address, in order to mail the notice of the sale as provided by that section. His inquiry, so far as the records of the assessor's office are concerned, need only extend to an inspection of the assessment-rolls from the date of the delinquent assessment to that made last before the sale. (Kehlet v. Bergman, 217.) 22. DESCRIPTION IN ASSESSMENT-REFERENCE TO RECORDED MAPS.-A description in an assessment which accurately describes the land in accordance with a recorded map is valid and sufficient to charge the owners with notice, notwithstanding they acquired their title to the land by a description making reference to another map of later record. (Id.) 23. SALE BY STATE-AMENDMENT OF 1905 TO SECTION 3897 OF POLITICAL CODE-MAILING NOTICE OF SALE TO PERSON LAST ASSESSEDVALIDITY OF SALE.-Under the amendment of March 1, 1905, to section 3897 of the Political Code, it is just as essential to the validity of a sale by the state of real property acquired by it for delinquent taxes, to mail the notice required by the amendment to the person to whom the land was last assessed when his last postoffice address is known to the tax-collector, as it is to give notice by publication. Both notice by publication and by mail where the last post-office address is known are essential to the validity of the taxsale. (Buck v. Canty, 226.) 24. PROCEEDINGS FOR SALE INITIATED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT - SALE AFTER AMENDMENT TOOK EFFECT-NOTICE BY MAIL ESSENTIAL TO VALIDITY OF SALE.-A sale by the state of land acquired by it for delinquent taxes, which was actually made after such amendment took effect, is void, if the notice by mail required by such amendment was not given to the person to whom the land was last assessed, when his last post-office address was known to the tax-collector, notwithstanding the proceedings for the sale were initiated under such section prior to its amendment, and the only notice of sale then required by that section was given by publication and the publica |