Davis v. Sawyer

• Decision Date: 14 March 1890
• Citation: 20 A. 100,66 N.H. 34
• Parties: DAVIS v. SAWYER.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

20 A. 100

66 N.H. 34

DAVIS

v. SAWYER.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

March 14, 1890.

Petition for partition, and that the amount due the plaintiff on account of expenditures on the common property be ordered to be paid to her by the defendant. The answer denies that plaintiff has title to any interest in the premises, and alleges that, if she has made any expenditures, it was without the defendant's knowledge or consent. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff claimed title to one-fourth part of the premises under a tax-deed from the collector of Pembroke to one Shepard, dated April 30, 1885, based upon a sale for the tax of 1883, when the premises were owned by Sarah E. Lindsey, of New York. The plaintiff went into possession of the premises under a deed from Shepard, March 25, 1885, and between that time and January 6, 1887, made repairs costing about $400, for which she claims that payment should be made to her by the defendant in this proceeding. The defendant's title to three-fourths of the premises was not disputed, and her title to the remaining one-fourth was only attacked by the plain tiff's tax-title. The defendant raised several objections to the tax-sale, founded upon faults in the collector's records and return of the sale. Parol evidence was admitted to show that the record was not correct or full in several particulars, and it was thereupon ordered to be amended accordingly, and the defendant excepted. The plaintiff's expenditure for repairs was made before the defendant acquired her title. It did not appear that the collector sent to the non-resident owner or her agent a bill of her taxes, as required by the statute. On the plaintiff's motion, judgment of title to one-fourth of the land was ordered for the plaintiff on the referee's report, and that she recover her expenditures for improvements, and the defendant excepted.

H. G. Sargent, for plaintiff. S. D. Lord, for defendant.

CLARK, J. It is settled that records and returns may be amended to conform to the truth of the fact, and the truth of the proposed amendment may be established by parol evidence. Gibson v. Bailey, 9 N. H. 168; Jaquith v. Putney, 48 N. H.138; Roberts v. Holmes, 54 N. H. 560; Taft v. Barrett, 58 N. H. 447; French v. Spalding, 61 N. H. 395. The amendments proposed by the plaintiff, and found by the referee to be conformable to the truth, being allowed, the objections to the tax-sale made by the defendant at the trial are obviated, being unsupported by the facts. The requirement of the statute that the collector shall, on or before the 1st day of September, send to the owners of non-resident property, or their agents, if known, a bill of their taxes, is a provision for the benefit and protection of non-resident tax-payers. It is designed to give the non-resident owner notice of the tax,...