Belhaven Heights Co. v. May
| Decision Date | 13 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 33826 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | BELHAVEN HEIGHTS CO. et al. v. MAY et al |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Hinds county HON. C. J. STRICKER Chancellor.
Suit by the Belhaven Heights Company and others against Dr. Ruel May and others to cancel as a cloud upon title a certain tax sale and a forfeited tax patent. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, complainants appeal. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
L. F Easterling and J. E. Skinner, both of Jackson, for appellants.
The tax title claimed by appellees under the description of Lots 14 and 16, Belhaven Heights, is not the same, but different property to that described in the "Corrected Map" of Belhaven Heights, Part II, and the court erred in holding that the property attempted to be assessed covered and included a plat of land according to the new map one hundred feet to the north and thirty feet to the east of that as described on the assessment roll.
Dodds v. Marx, 63 Miss. 443; McQueen v. Bush, 76 Miss 283, 24 So. 196; Leavensworth v. Greenville Co., 82 Miss. 578, 35 So. 138; Cassedy v. Hartman, 93 Miss. 94, 46 So. 536; Crawford v. McLaurin, 83 Miss. 265, 35 So. 209, 949; Smith v. Brothers, 86 Miss. 241, 38 So. 353; Neal v. Shepard, 128 So. 69, 583, 157 Miss. 730; Carr v. Barton, 162 So. 172, 173 Miss. 662; Ransom v. Young (Miss.), 168 So. 473; Patterson v. Morgan, 138 So. 362, 161 Miss. 807; Lott v. Rouse, 147 Miss. 802, 111 So. 338.
Where two lots in a city or town are adjacent and contiguous and assessed to the same owner, they must be sold together as a whole, as provided by Sections 3249 and 3250 of the Code of 1930.
House v. Gumble, 78 Miss. 259, 29 So. 71; Herron v. Jennings, 31 So. 965; Wilkerson v. Harrington, 115 Miss. 637, 76 So. 563; Talmadge v. Seward, 155 Miss. 580, 124 So. 791; Morris v. Meyer, 87 Miss. 701, 40 So. 231; Stevenson v. Reed, 90 Miss. 341, 43 So. 433; Herring v. Moses, 71 Miss. 620, 14 So. 437; Nelson v. Abernathy, 74 Miss. 164, 21 So. 150; Higdon v. Salter, 76 Miss. 766, 25 So. 864; Gregory v. Brogan, 74 Miss. 694, 21 So. 520; Steward v. So. Engine & Boiler Works, 100 Miss. 895, 57 So. 218; Hatchett v. Thompson, 165 So. 110, 174 Miss. 502; Russell Investment Co. v. Russell (Miss.), 178 So. 815, 182 So. 102; Carter v. Moore (Miss.), 183 So. 512.
The tax assessment is void because the minutes fail to show notice given to taxpayers to file objections to the roll.
Code 1930, Sections 3162, 3165, 3166, 3184; Henderson Molpus Co. v. Gammill, 149 Miss. 576, 115 So. 716; Robb v. Postal Telegraph Co., 104 Miss. 165, 61 So. 170, 977; Russell v. Copiah County, 153 Miss. 459, 121 So. 133; Robinson v. First National Bank, 115 Miss. 840, 76 So. 689; Sec. 203, Code 1930; Doe v. Burford, 26 Miss. 194; Hunter v. Bennett, 149 Miss. 368, 115 So. 204; Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1; Gordon v. Smith, 122 So. 762, 154 Miss. 787; McDavitt v. Walls, 122 So. 766; Rawlings v. Ladner, 165 So. 477, 174 Miss. 611; Sharp v. Smith (Miss.), 178 So. 595; Lee v. Hancock County, 178 So. 790; Pettibone v. Wells (Miss.), 179 So. 559, Dulaney v. Dulaney (Miss.), 178 So. 814; Mullins v. Lyle, 183 So. 696; Federal Land Bank v. Cox, 183 So. 482; Stevenson v. McLeod Lumber Co., 120 Miss. 65, 81 So. 788; Perkins v. State, 148 Miss. 608, 114 So. 392.
W. B. Fontaine and May & Byrd, all of Jackson, for appellees.
The suit filed by appellants in the lower court was barred by the statute of limitations set out in Chapter 196 of the Laws of 1934.
Russell Investment Corp. v. Russell, 182 Miss. 385, 178 So. 815, 182 So. 102; Chapter 196, Laws of 1934.
The assessment and tax sale of the property involved was according to the corrected map of Belhaven Heights, and appellee has a good title to such property.
Lewis v. Monson, 38 L.Ed. 265, 151 U.S. 545, 14 S. C. R. 424; Martin v. Smith, 140, Miss. 168, 105 So. 494; Moores v. Thomas, 95 Miss. 644, 48 So. 1025; Reed v. Heard, 97 Miss. 743, 53 So. 400; Richter v. Beaumont, 67 Miss. 285, 7 So. 357; Robertson v. U.S. Nursery Co., 121 Miss. 14, 83 So. 307; Sanford v. City of Meridian, 52 Miss. 383; Standard Drug Co. v. Pierce, 111 Miss. 354, 71 So. 577; Tamburo v. Standard Oil Co., 164 Miss. 386, 145 So. 107.
City lots must be sold as assessed, and where separately assessed, must be sold separately for the unpaid taxes.
House v. Gumble & Co., 78 Miss. 259, 29 So. 71; Code of 1930, Sections 3145, 3148, 3149, 3247, 3250.
All jurisdictional facts appear from minutes of Board of Supervisors to make valid a tax sale of realty.
City of Jackson v. Nunn, 178 Miss. 665, 174 So. 578; Martin v. Bd. of Sup. of Winston County, 181 Miss. 363, 178 So. 315; Mullins v. Lyle, 183 Miss. 297, 183 So. 696; Pettibone v. Wells, 181 Miss. 425, 179 So. 366; Simpson v. Ricketts, 186 So. 318.
The final decree appealed from dismissed the bill of complaint filed by the appellants, which sought to cancel as a cloud upon their title a certain tax sale of April 5, 1932, to the State and a forfeited tax patent subsequently issued thereon by the State Land Commissioner to the appellee Dr. Ruel May, for Lots 14 and 16 of Block 6 in Part 2 of Belhaven Heights, a subdivision of the City of Jackson, and under which said tax sale and patent appellees claim title to the same numbered lots in Block 6 in said Part 2, according to a corrected survey thereof, it being alleged that the tax sale was made on an assessment for the years 1930-31, according to the plat of the original survey and on which these corresponding numbered lots and block were situated a distance of 100 feet south and some few feet west of where they were located on the correct survey.
It appears that after the filing and recordation of the original plat during the year 1904, the lots described thereon were sold to various parties who attempted to go into possession thereof, according to their deeds of conveyance from the Belhaven Heights Company, and that they built houses and otherwise improved the lots which they claimed respectively. That, through error, however, the purchasers did not enter upon the particular ground called for in their deeds, according to the plat then of record, but that they entered instead upon land approximately 100 feet distant therefrom. That, shortly prior to the year 1928, the error was discovered, and inasmuch as none of the respective purchasers were in possession of the land actually called for in their deeds, and there were several hundred lots involved, each owner desired to clear his title to the lot of which he was in possession. That, consequently, a suit to correct the plat was filed by the City of Jackson and others styled Cause No. 16, 149 on docket of the Chancery Court of Hinds County, and to which all persons in interest were made parties, including A. M. Owen, the then owner of the two lots in controversy. A final decree was rendered in said Cause No. 16, 149, whereby the old plat of the survey was vacated and cancelled, and a corrected plat thereof was substituted in its place. That decree, which was not appealed from, recited that the substituted plat or map of the survey "is a correct map of Part 2 of Belhaven Heights, as said Part 2 . . . was originally surveyed, subdivided, staked off and sold by the Belhaven Heights Company, and later in parcels resold or held by subsequent vendees, purchasers, heirs or others, and that the lots, blocks, streets and alleys as they are depicted, located, numbered or named on and by said corrected map are the identical lots, block, streets and alleys which were actually and truly intended to be described where those same numbers and names appear in instruments or proceedings heretofore made or had concerning property in this subdivision."
In compliance with that decree, the Chancery Clerk made notation on the original plat or map, as follows: "See Cause No. 16, 149 on Chancery Court Docket vacating this plat and substituting Plat No. 34 in Plat Book 4."
The lots in question were separately assessed as Lots 14 and 16 in Block 6 of Part 2 of Belhaven Heights subdivision in the City of Jackson, on the assessment roll for the years 1930-31 as the property of the said A. M. Owen. He paid the taxes thereon under such assessment for the year 1930, but failed to pay for the year 1931, and the lots were separately sold and struck off to the State, pursuant to that assessment.
The assessment roll did not specify whether the lots assessed were being described according to the original or the corrected survey, and it is contended by the appellants that the assessment and sale were void on the ground that the assessment roll itself did not sufficiently describe the lots so as to identify the property as being Lots 14 and 16 of Block 6 of Part 2 of the Belhaven Heights Subdivision, according to the corrected survey thereof; that these numbered lots on the corrected survey are located 100 feet north and several feet east of these same numbered lots on the original survey, and that said Lots 14 and 16, according to the original survey, correspond with Belmont Street and a part of Lot 2 in Block 17 on the corrected survey.
No proof was offered by the appellants to show that the assessor intended to assess these lots by their numbers according to the original survey, but it is contended that such intention was disclosed by the mere fact that the roll did not affirmatively show that they were being assessed according to the corrected survey. In our opinion, a sufficient answer to this contention is that when the assessment was made for the years 1930-31, there was in fact only one survey of the Belhaven Heights subdivision, as disclosed by the final decree in Cause No. 16, 149, the notation of the clerk on the original plat of the survey and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial