Lewis v. Seibles
Lewis v. Seibles
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Hanna v. Renfro, 32 Miss. 125, it was decided that a tax collector’s deed which designated the section, township and range, but not the County or State in which the land lay was not void for uncertainty of description, and it was said in the opinion in that case that “it was but a latent ambiguity which was susceptible of explanation.” In our view such a deed does not present any ambiguity at all. There is no other land to which it could be applied than the particular section in the county in which the grantor was tax collector. The deed is a nullity as to land out of the county, and it is not suggested that in the county there are several parcels of land to which the description in the deed can be applied. Since there are not several tracts of land to which the description in the deed could apply,
The deeds offered in evidence by the defendant in connection with a proposal to show actual occupation under them for three years after the Code of 1880 became operative were properly excluded. The purpose of this offer was to invoke §539 of the Code. But it had no application. The plaintiff did not seek to recover the land or assail the title of which the defendant sought to avail, because of any defect in the sale for taxes or in any precedent step to such sale. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the very title which the defendant invoked. To show that title to be good did not help the defendant or harm the plaintiff who had acquired it by subsequent proceedings.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- E. V. Lewis v. C. L. Seibles
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Tax Deed. Description of land. Ambiguity. Case in judgment. A description of land in a tax collector’s deed by township, range, section and sub-division of section, without giving the State or county, is not ambiguous, because (as is judicially known) it is only applicable to land in the county in which the grantor was tax collector, it not appearing that such description is applicable to several tracts of land within that county. 2. Same. Defect in description of land supplied by presumption. And the want of State and county in such description may be supplied by the presumption of performance of official duty by the tax collector, who can only sell, legally, land assessed and delinquent for taxes in the county of which he is tax collector. 3. Tax Title. Ejectment. Three years’ statute of limitation. Section 539, Code of 1880, construed. Section 539, Code of 1880, provides that “Actual occupation for three years, after one year from the day of sale, of any land held under a conveyance by a tax collector, in pursuance of a sale for taxes, shall bar any suit to recover such land or assail such title because of any defect in the sale of such land for taxes, or in any precedent step to said sale,” etc. In an action of ejectment based upon a tax collector’s deed executed in 1875, it is not admissible for the defendant to invoke Section 539, Code of 1880, by showing three years’ adverse possession since 1880, under a tax collector’s conveyance executed in 1872, because such section is not applicable. The plaintiff’s assertion of title is not an assailment of that set up by the defendant, and the establishment of the defendant’s title does not assail that by which the plaintiff claims.