Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

LOOMIS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

         The claims set up by plaintiff are not for " taxes per centum or costs illegally or erroneously collected." The amounts paid by plaintiff were as the purchase prices of the lands sold. The doctrine of caveat emptor applies. He had full notice of any defect, if any, in the assessments or proceedings, or could have obtained it. He was a mere volunteer, and can not recover back what he voluntarily paid out. (Harper v. Rowe , 53 Cal. 233.)

         JUDGES: Myrick, J. Sharpstein and Thornton, JJ., concurred.

         OPINION

          MYRICK, Judge

         This action was brought to recover of the County of Los Angeles an amount of money alleged to have been paid by plaintiff under the following circumstances:

         The Tax Collector sold at public auction, to plaintiff, for non-payment of State and County taxes, certain real property assessed to one Acuna, plaintiff, as purchaser, paying the amount of the taxes (which amount was by the Tax Collector paid into the County Treasury), and a certificate was duly issued to plaintiff. It subsequently appeared that the assessment was fatally defective, and plaintiff took no title to the lands attempted to be sold. He now brings his action to recover of the county the amount paid by him, basing his right to recover on Section 3804, Political Code. That section does not apply to a case of this kind. There is no rule of law authorizing the plaintiff to recover.

         Judgment and order affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Loomis v. County of Los Angeles
(Oct 1, 1881)