City of Springfield v. Arcade Malleable Iron Co.

• Citation: 188 N.E. 639,285 Mass. 154
• Parties: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD v. ARCADE MALLEABLE IRON CO.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1934
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

285 Mass. 154

188 N.E. 639

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

v.ARCADE MALLEABLE IRON CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Jan. 9, 1934.

Appeal from Land Court, Hampden County; C. T. Davis, Judge.

Petition by City of Springfield against Arcade Malleable Iron Company to foreclose a tax title. From an order dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.C. V. Ryan, Jr., City Sol., of Springfield, for appellant.

Lawrence F. Davis, of Lynn, for appellee.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

This is a petition to foreclose a tax title held by the petitioner on real estate of the respondent. It comes before us by appeal from a decision of the Land Court dismissing the petition. The land was sold in 1930 for non-payment of the taxes of 1929. The question is whether the description in the advertisement and deed was adequate to conform to the requirements of the law.

In the decision of the trial judge it was found that ‘all of the property of the respondent in Springfield consists of one contiguous parcel of land situate between Page Boulevard on the northwest, a way sometimes known as Hendee Street on the northeast, the Boston and Albany Railroad on the southeast and land now or formerly of J. Howard Jones on the southwest.’ In 1929 there were two assessments made to the respondent: One lot was described in the advertisement for tax sale as a ‘lot of land assessed to Charles M. Jacobs, supposed subsequent owner the Arcade Malleable Iron Company, containing 5204 square feet, situate on the easterly side of Page Boulevard and adjoining estate now or formerly of J. Howard Jones.’ The other lot was described as a ‘lot of land containing about 202,864 square feet with building thereon situate on the easterly side of Page Boulevard and adjoining estate now or formerly of other land of said Arcade Malleable Iron Company.’ The controversy relates solely to the larger tract. The validity of the tax sale of the smaller tract is not here involved. The vital finding of the trial judge is in these words: ‘Apparently the assessors made a distinction for some unknown reason between a strip of land containing 5,204 square feet bounding southwesterly on the Jones land and northwesterly on the Boulevard and the remainder of the respondent's land to the northeast of that. The respondent knew that its taxes were not paid, and its officers supposed that the advertisement of sale of the larger tract included all of their land. On the other hand the question before me is simply whether the description was sufficient for a valid advertisement and tax deed. I am constrained to find that it was not. A proposed purchaser could not tell, the owner did...