Opinion
Department Two
Appeal from an order granting defendant a new trial in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino. Rolfe, J.
The land was described in the deed referred to in the opinion as the " Sylvester Bryant Tract of the Muscupiabe Ranch."
It was objected to the deed when offered in evidence that the words " and to all owners and claimants known and unknown" were erased in two places and also the words " two dollars," but these words do not appear in the copy of the deed in the bill of exceptions.
COUNSEL
There was no error in rejecting the deed. (People v. Mahony , 55 Cal. 286.)
The statute required a description by township, range, section, or fractional section; and when such land is not a Congressional division or subdivision, by metes and bounds or other description sufficient to identify it giving an estimate of the number of acres, locality, and improvements thereon. (P. C. § 3650, Subdiv. 2.) The burden of proof as to the erasures of the deed was on the plaintiff. ( C. C. P. 1982.)
Hancock, Satterwhite & Curtis, for Appellant.
C. W. C. Rowell, and Henry Melville, for Respondent.
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.