Opinion
No. 34953.
April 27, 1942.
1. TAXATION.
When owner whose land lies in a particular section finds that an assessment of land in that section has been made, he should, in view of statute, expect to find in that group, assessments for every one of the other owners of that section, including himself, and when he finds on assessment rolls the grouping of sections with two blank lines between each section, with the section, township, and range written out as a part of the first item of the group, landowner has been furnished a reasonably sufficient identification as to what property was assessed (Code 1930, sec. 3148).
2. TAXATION.
Certainty beyond all doubt is not required of descriptions in assessment rolls, but a description reasonably certain either within itself or which by aid of pertinent statutes can be made reasonably certain is all that is required.
3. TAXATION.
Where columns of assessment roll indicated name of owner, description of land, section, township and range and subdivisions of each section were set down in order under name of first owner for which all the columns were filled in, and descriptions totalled a full section, and each section was separated from the others by two blank lines, description was sufficient to support a sale for unpaid taxes notwithstanding that section, township and range were not expressly set out in the same line with the other descriptions of the land or indicated by ditto marks in the section, township and range columns (Code 1930, section 3148).
APPEAL from chancery court of Winston county, HON. T.P. GUYTON, Chancellor.
Hoy Hathorn, of Louisville, for appellant.
It is the contention of appellant that the appellee could not have been misled, misconceived or prejudiced in any manner by a description of his lands on the assessment roll; and further that any intelligent person, without the aid of parol testimony, only from an examination of the assessment roll, could not possibly arrive at any other conclusion from the assessment roll other than that the lands in controversy were in Section 23, Township 14, Range 11. The court will take judicial cognizance that there is only one Township 14, Range 11, in Winston County, Mississippi.
Moores v. Thomas, 95 Miss. 443, 48 So. 1025; Dodds v. Marx, 63 Miss. 443; Tamburo v. Standard Oil Co., 164 Miss. 386, 145 So. 107; Griffin v. Tuttle, 74 Iowa, 219, 37 N.W. 167; McCoun v. Pierpont, 232 N.Y. 66, 133 N.E. 355; Auditor-General v. Sparrow, 116 Mich. 574, 74 N.W. 881; Van Ostrand v. Cole, 131 Wis. 446, 110 N.W. 891; State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13, 23 P. 799; Blum v. Nassau et al., 256 N.Y. 232, 176 N.E. 176; Standard Drug Co. v. Pierce, 111 Miss. 354, 71 So. 577; Martin v. Smith et al., 140 Miss. 168, 105 So. 494; Reed v. Heard, 97 Miss. 743, 53 So. 400; Seward v. Carter, 190 Miss. 354, 200 So. 248; Otis v. People, 196 Ill. 542, 63 N.E. 1053; Mississippi Code of 1930, Secs. 3145, 3148, 3151, 3181; Mississippi Code of 1930, Ch. 169; 61 C.J. 716, par. 885; 61 C.J. 719, par. 888; 61 C.J. 1137, par. 1542; 37 Cyc. 1053.
Rodgers Prisock and H.T. Carter, all of Louisville, for appellee.
An insufficient description of land on the assessment roll cannot be aided by extrinsic evidence unless the roll itself furnishes the clue which followed by the aid of such evidence will lead to the land intended.
Dodd v. Marx, 63 Miss. 443; Sims v. Warren, 68 Miss. 447, 10 So. 40; Nelson v. Abernathy, 74 Miss. 164, 21 So. 150; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Baldwin, 77 Miss. 788, 28 So. 948; Patterson v. Morgan, 161 Miss. 807, 138 So. 362; McQueen v. Bush, 76 Miss. 283, 24 So. 196; Carr v. Barton, 173 Miss. 662, 162 So. 172; Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Cox, 183 Miss. 250, 183 So. 482; Brown v. Womack, 181 Miss. 66, 178 So. 785.
"Due process" requires that to create lien, tax assessment must describe property with certainty or contain data clearly leading to identification.
Carr v. Barton, supra.
The legislature has the right to say how an assessment shall be made, our legislature has fixed the way the "due process" shall be obtained; therefore the legislatures of other states have the same right, and the cases from other jurisdictions and other states do not govern this assessment, so that in reply to the cases from other jurisdictions we state that the court has spoken in the case of Brown v. Womack, 181 Miss. 66, 178 So. 785, when it said the code "Section 3151, Code of 1930, never intended to permit the titles to land to roam at large. . . . The cue must be found in the particular assessment."
The sole question for decision in this case is whether the description of appellee's land on the assessment roll for the year here in question was sufficient to support the sale for the unpaid taxes of that year.
The assessment was made upon the standard printed page blank, lined and ruled, and at the top of the page was printed as follows:
"Name of Owner — Description of Land — Section — Township — Range," and the page carried continued headings for the number of acres for each assessment, the valuation, etc. The continued headings are not material here and further reference to them is omitted. The particular page started with the assessments for Section 21, Township 14, Range 11, and the first item of the assessment for that section which was an item of 120 acres carried out 21-14-11 to and under the appropriate ruled section, township, and range columns. There were six other assessments for that section, but none of the said other six carried out the figures 21-14-11. When Section 21 had been finished, two blank lines were skipped and next occurred an assessment of 140 acres for which the description was extended to include the figures 22-14-11 under the ruled columns for section, township, range. There were five other assessments in this group but none of the five carried out the figures into the section, township, and range columns.
When Section 22 had been finished two blank lines were skipped and the assessments for the next section, that is to say, Section 23, — including the printed top heading, — were as follows:
"Name of Owner Description of Land Section Township Range
Clark, Jno. C. N I/2 NE I/4 N I/2 SW I/4 23 14 11 NE I/4 SE I/4 NE Massey, I.H. E I/2 NW I/4 Carter, Mrs. W.F. 60 A. in W I/2 SW Ball, Gene S I/2 SW NE Fulliwilder, Jim E I/2 SW NW I/4 SE E I/2 NW SW Carr, S.T. SW I/4 SE E I/2 SE Winston, R.E. Co. W I/2 NW"
When the above descriptions are totalled as to quantity, it will be seen that they add up to a full section of 640 acres. When Section 23 had thus been covered, two blank lines were skipped and the descriptions for Section 24 were dealt with in the same manner. And it is shown that the entire assessment roll for all the sections in the county was made up in the same way.
Appellee's lands are those described in the fifth item of the several foregoing assessments for Section 23. It is his contention that inasmuch as the section, township, and range were not expressly set out in the same line with the other descriptions of his land, or in lieu thereof was not indicated as being in Section 23 of that township and range by ditto marks in the section, township, and range columns, the description is incomplete and void.
Section 3148, Code 1930, directs in effect that the assessor in preparing his land roll will proceed numerically with the sections, and that when a section is reached he will make a group of all the different ownerships in that particular section. When an owner whose land lies in a particular section finds that an assessment of land in that section has been made, he should, in view of the statute, reasonably expect to find there and in that group the assessments for every one of the other owners in that section including himself, and when he finds the grouping such as this roll consistently followed, with the section, township, and range expressly stated or written out as a part of the first or opening item of that group, we think he has been thereby furnished a reasonably sufficient identification of his land, and one which should leave him in no real doubt as to what was thereby assessed. Certainty beyond all doubt is not required of descriptions in assessment rolls. A description reasonably certain either within itself or which by the aid of pertinent statutes can be made reasonably certain is all that is required, so far as the description is concerned.
Those who are familiar with land titles and the manner of assessments for taxes will generally agree, as we believe, that many, if not most of the land assessment rolls in this state, have been for years made up in the manner pursued by the roll here in question, and it is of some significance that our bar which has been astute in stripping tax titles has not heretofore deemed the point made in this case to be sufficient upon which to venture a law suit. But it has been presented in a few other states. In Auditor General v. Sparrow, 116 Mich. 574, 74 N.W. 881, the identical point upon an almost identical state of facts was urged, as may be seen from the copy of the roll printed on page 586 of the report of that case in 116 Mich., page 885 of 74 N.W., but the contention of invalidity was rejected and for reasons in which we concur, and which have been briefly summarized by us in the next preceding paragraph herein. We are of the opinion that the assessment was valid.
Reversed, and decree here for appellant.