The assessment was not made to James Phelanand " to all owners and claimants, known or unknown," etc. The assessment is made to James Phelan, in accordance with Sections 3650 and 3651, Political Code. In the column headed " taxpayer's name," the only name that appears is that of defendant.
The other clause is no part of the assessment; it is but a printed recital inserted in the roll through an abundance of caution; not true in fact or law, and doing neither good nor harm, and is mere surplusage. To have made it part of the assessment, it should have been inserted by the Assessor in the column headed " Taxpayers' Names," and in connection with that of the defendant; thus: " James Phelan and all owners and claimants known or unknown," etc. (Smith v. Davis , 30 Cal. 537; Blatner v. Davis , 32 Cal. 330.)
This printed recital might have been on the first or last last page of the assessment book, and would have been in that event as much of the assessment as it is now. The cases cited by counsel do not apply. Grotefend v. Ultz , 53 Cal. 666, the leading case--the others simply following it as authority--was an action of ejectment, and without questioning the soundness of the rule there laid down as to the effect of the recitals in a tax deed, it is perfectly manifest that the doctrine has no application here. But if the assessment was made as contended by appellant, it is not therefore void. (O'Grady v. Barnhisel , 23 Cal. 287; Brunn v. Murphy , 29 Cal. 326; See Curative Act, Statutes 1877-8, p. 338-9; People v. Seymour , 16 Cal. 332; Cooley on Const. Lim. (Marg.), 371, and authorities cited.
The Court below found as a fact that the defendant had, at the time of the assessment, the amount of money for which he had been assessed. There was a substantial conflict of evidence; therefore, this finding will not be disturbed. (Turner v. Mahoney , 56 Cal. 215; Wakefield v. Bouton , 55 Cal. 109.) The evidence introduced by plaintiff was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, unless rebutted. (Statutes, 1877-8, p. 339.)
OPINION The Court:
1. The assessment was made to the defendant by name. The recital in the assessment book under the head " Description of Property," that " the property is assessed to parties listed and to all owners and claimants known or unknown," was an idle recital, and did not place the assessment within the principle decided in Hearst v. Egglestone , 55 Cal. 365, and the other cases therein referred to.
2. The statute makes the duplicate assessment-roll, or a certified copy, prima facie evidence of a right to recover. This necessarily makes the roll, or the copy, some evidence that the person named did own the property specified. Notwithstanding the testimony of the defendant that he did not have any money at the time of the assessment, the Court found against him; and with that finding, there being evidence to sustain it, this Court will not interfere.
Judgment and order affirmed.