Anderson v. Hancock

         The name " Sylvester Bryant Tract," of the Muscupiabe Rancho, was alone sufficient to identify the tract assessed. (People v. Crockett , 33 Cal. 153; High v. Shoemaker , 22 id. 371; Brunn v. Murphy , 29 id. 329; Wetherbee v. Dunn , 32 id. 108; Pol. C. § 3650.) The burden of proving the erasure of printed matter in deed was on defendant. (Corcoran v. Doll , 32 Cal. 82; Code Civil Procedure, 1982.)

         OPINION          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.