Tierney v. Brown
Tierney v. Brown
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The contest is over the SE ^ of Sec. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E. In one of appellant’s muniments of title, it is described as part of SE \ •Sec. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E. This description indicated no particular part of the subdivision named, and is therefore fatally defective and void. Yandell v. Pugh, 53 Miss., 295; Bowens v. Andrews, 52 Id., 596 ; Cogburn v. Hunt, 54 Id., 675; Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Id., 1038. But the land claimed by appellant is also described as south part of Sec. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E., two hundred and twenty-five acres. This description is not void for uncertainty. It is easy enough to lay off two hundred and twenty-five acres of the south part of a given section. Such description is good to ■convey two hundred and twenty-five acres, to be laid off in a •strip of equal depth in the southern part of the section, the •southern boundary of the whole section being the base line for the measurement. Goodbar v. Dunn, 61 Miss., 618 ; Enochs v. Miller, 60 Id., 19; McCready v. Lansdale, 58 Id., 879; Bowers v. Chambers, 53 Id., 259.
So that, treating part of the SB | Sec. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E., as void for uncertainty, still a part of the land in controversy, at least, may be embraced in the other description — the south part •of Section 5, T. 14, R. 4 E., two hundred and twenty-five acres.
The list of land sold to the state is prima facie evidence that the assessment and sale of the land for taxes was valid, and there is nothing in the record that contravenes this evidence. The land having been assessed to the State in 1819, and.after-wards omitted, under the act of 1880, from the list of lands belonging to the state, it was not necessary, as far as the record shows, that it should be re-assessed, in order to sell it for the taxes of an unknown owner, in 1881. Gwynn v. Richardson, 3 Southern Reporter, 579. The assessment of 1819 was valid, except as to the name of the owner, and it does not appear that more was done towards omitting or striking the land from the tax roll as state land, than to erase the name of the state as owner from the roll, and insert “ unknown” in lieu thereof as to the ownership.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ellen Tierney v. King Brown
- Syllabus
- 1. Deed. Insufficient description of land. • A description of land in a deed, as “Part of S. E. i, See. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E.,” is void, because it indicates no particular part of the subdivision mentioned. 2. Same. Good description of land. But the description, “ South part of Sec. 5, T. 14, R. 4 E., 225 acres,” in a deed, is sufficiently certain, as the quantity of land specified may be laid off in a strip of equal depth north of the southern boundary line of the section. 3. Tax Assessment. Land stricken from list of State lands. Act of March 5, 1880. Where a tract of land appearing upon the assessment roll of 1879 as belonging to the State was, in pursuance of an act of the legislature, approved March 5,1880, stricken from the list of lands held by the State for taxes, and the assessment roll changed by the substitution of the word “Unknown” for “State,” in the column of names of owners, no additional assessment of such land was necessary, under the requirement of that act that there should be a new assessment of land in such case, “ if not already assessed,” but the original assessment amended as indicated was sufficient to support a subsequent sale for taxes. 4. Same. Approval by Board of Supervisors. Presumption as to time of meeting. The approval of an assessment roll by the board of supervisors at a time when there could be no regular meeting of such hoard, is presumed to have been at a legally called special meeting, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary.