H. Lochte & Co. v. Austin
H. Lochte & Co. v. Austin
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The uncertainty as to the land described by the tax-collector’s deed, by reason of its failure to state that the lot is in Biloxi, was removed by the evidence, which also shows the application of the expression in it, “ less lot sold to Zuberbier & Behan,” and renders certain what land was sold.
The deed is prima facie evidence that the assessment and sale of the land were legal and valid, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, must be held to have conveyed title.
The defendant is one of the heirs of Hurty, the grantee in the tax-collector’s deed, and had the right to defend under it for herself and co tenants, if they had not conveyed to her; but they had, and, as the lot was correctly described in their
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. Lochte & Co. v. Alice E. Austin
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Tax-title. Deed. Description. Parol evidence. Where land in a town is sold for taxes, and the collector’s deed fails to. mention the town, hut describes the property as being in a certain township and range of the county, bounded by certain streets, the land may be identified by parol evidence showing the location of the streets in the town. 2. Same. Description. Misnomer of boundary. Where, in a deed, land is correctly described as to its boundaries on three sides, the misnomer of a street on the remaining side is immaterial. 3. Same. Tax-collector’s deed. Prima facie evidence. Part of taxes illegal. A tax-collector’s deed is prima facie evidence of a valid assessment and sale. It is immaterial that part of the tax for which the land was sold was illegal, if that which was legal was not tendered before sale. Code 1880, §525.