MOEA V. NUNEZ, 635 �bishop Alemany. The title to these parcels resta, firstly, upon an execution sale ; and, secondly, upon a patent to Archbishop Alemany. �In June, 1861, the district attorney of San Joaquin county brought an action in the fifth judicial district in said county of San Joaquin against An- dreas Pico, a resident of Los Angeles county, for certain delinquent taxes levied against said Pico for two flscal years, ending in Mardi, 1859 and 1860, in the county of San Joaquin, upon lands known as the Moquelemos grant, situated in said county. Ile prayed judgment for $2,671, with costs and charges; that the said land and improvements be decreed to be sold to sat- isfy the taxes and charges; and for such other and further relief as might be just and equitable. �This action is expressly stated in the complaint to be brought in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the state entitled "An act to legalize and pro- vide for the collection of delinquent taxes in the couuties of this state," ap- proved May 17, 1861. This act legalizes the taxes for the flscal years ending March 1, 1859, and March 1, 1860; and in case they cannot otherwise be col- lected, provides for collecting them by suit in a prescribed form. The com- plaint is drawn and the suit prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the act. The defendant Pico, having been served with the summons, ap- peared and demurred. The demurrer having been overruled, in due time, on December 26, 1861, a personal judgment, in default of an answer, was ren- dered against Pico for $3,339.55 and costs. There was no decree for a sale of the lands upon which the taxes were levied, and upon which they were a lien. No transcript of this judgment was ever flled in Los Angeles county, nor was there any record of a lien of any kind made in that county. On April 29, 1862, au execution in the ordinary form, upon a personal money judgment at law, issued to the sheriff of Los Angeles county, commanding him to satisfy the execution out of the personal property, if sufflcient could be found; and if sufflcient could not be found, then out of the real property " belonging to him, Pico, on the day when the said judgment was docketed in the county aforesaid, or at any time thereafter." There is some ambiguity as to which county, San Joaquin or Los Angeles, this clause refers. �The sherifP s return certifled that " he served the said writ of execution by levying on " all the right, title, and interest of Pico in the raneho San Fer- nando, in Los Angeles county, but he does not state what acts he peformed to constitute the levy. The return also shows that on June 9, 1862, he did " sell the lands and promises above mentioned and described to Thadeas Amat, he being the Mghest bidder for the same, to-wit, for the sum of $2,000." The lands described and sold embraeed upwards of 121,000 acres. The published notice of sale, annexed to the return, is that I " shall expose for sale, at pub- lic auction, for cash, to the highest bidder;" and the sheriff's deed recites that he did " sell the premises at public auction, * * * at which sale the said promises were struck off and sold to Thadeas Amat for the sum of $2,000, the said Thadeas Amat being the highest bidder, and that being tha highest sum Mdden, and the whole priee paid for the same." ��� �
