Doherty v. Real Estate Title Ins. & T. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12,866 - (170).,s. 12,866 - (170). |
| Parties | EDWARD J. DOHERTY v. REAL ESTATE TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in ejectment in the district court for Ramsey county. The case was tried before Kelly, J., who found in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Samuel Whaley, for appellant.
W. T. McMurran and John F. Fitzpatrick, for respondents.
This action is to recover possession of lot 1, Lawton's rearrangement of block 23, in Brown & Jackson's addition to West St. Paul. It was tried to the court, who made findings of fact, and held that defendants were entitled to judgment.
Plaintiff claims under a tax sale for 1893; also under a state assignment certificate for taxes of 1895. The judgment for the taxes of 1893 was declared void upon the ground that the description in the published delinquent list was defective, as well as for the further reason that the sixty-day notice to redeem provided for in G. S. 1894, § 1654, was uncertain, in designating the time within which redemption could be made. There are no other alleged errors or defects in the sale of 1893; hence the validity of the tax judgment for that year depends upon the conclusions we are required to adopt as to the two grounds on which it was held invalid.
In order correctly to apprehend defendants' objection to the description of the property in the delinquent list as published, we insert so much of such list as seems necessary to illustrate the gist of the particular point pon which it was held insufficient by the court below.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SIX, CITY OF ST. PAUL — CONTINUED
Total
Name of Owner and Subdivision, amount of
delinquent
of Section, Lot or Block, Lot Block taxes and
penalty
Assessment District Number Six
Cents
City of St. Paul — Continued Dollars
Brown and Jackson's Addition to West St. Paul —
Geo. W. Hitchcock ........................................................ .. 15 78.08
E. Langevin et al. ex. part taken for W. St. Paul R. E. & I. Syndicate
Add. No. 6 ............................................................ .. 17 33.46
P. Limoger, Com'g on S. line of blk. 22, 100 ft. E. of S. W. cor. of said
blk. th. N. 240 ft. th. S.E'ly 50 ft. th. S. 220 ft. to S. line of blk
th. W. 50 ft. to beg. part of.......................................... .. 22 22.31
Lawton's Rearrangement of Block 23, Brown and Jackson's Addition to
West St. Paul —
Germania Land Co.......................................................... 1 .. 123.99
James W. Williams......................................................... 14 .. 42.56
Brown and Jackson's Addition to West St. Paul —
John Jerges, W. 28¾ ft. of......................................... 1 25 36.11
Max Folz, N. ½ of W. 47 ft. of E. 65 25-100 ft. of................. 2 25 32.55
Max Folz, S. ½ of W. 47 ft. of E. 65 25-100 ft. of................. 2 25 21.75
John Jerges, E. 18¼ ft. of......................................... 2 25 20.99
C. B. Lawton's Rearrangement of N. ½, Lots 1 and 3, Block 50, Brown
and Jackson's addition to West St. Paul —
C. A. Morgan ............................................................. 1 .. 7.80
J. W. Williams............................................................ 4 .. 6.69
Jas. M. Welch............................................................. 6 .. 6.69
Defendants insist that "Lot 1, Lawton's Rearrangement," etc., is not sufficiently pointed out, because the two dots after the name of the alleged owner (Germania Land Company) and between the figure 1 and the amount of the taxes ($123.99), in this published description, tend to mislead a person seeking information concerning delinquent taxes; that in examining this notice he would be impressed with the view that lot 1 was in block 22 (the number of the first block above the dots) in Brown & Jackson's addition to West St. Paul.
We are unable to adopt this view. A description which is calculated to inform the owner that his land is to be sold is all that is required. It has been held by this court, following the general rule, that the test of sufficiency in relation to descriptions of real estate in tax proceedings is whether a man of ordinary intelligence would identify the land described with reasonable certainty. Collins v. Welch, 38 Minn. 62, 35 N. W. 566; Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173, 46 N. W. 341; Sperry v. Goodwin, 44 Minn. 207, 46 N. W. 328; Godfrey v. Valentine, 45 Minn. 502, 48 N. W. 325; McQuade v. Jaffray, 47 Minn. 326, 329, 50 N. W. 233; Minneapolis Ry. T. Co. v. Minnesota Debenture Co., 81 Minn. 66, 70, 83 N. W. 485.
It is not easy for us to apply this provision of the statute so as to give to the dots on the line with lot 1, opposite "Germania Land Co.," any significance as descriptive of the property in question. The abbreviations and symbols specifically designated in section 1627 are made therein to have a definite significance, viz., "to that which precedes" (Hoyt v. Clark, 64 Minn. 139, 66 N. W. 262), and might, but for the heading or cross line immediately above lot 1, referring to Lawton's rearrangement, etc., be, under certain circumstances and in appropriate connection, treated as similar characters to the abbreviations referred to in the statute, but could not have that effect if inconsistent with more important elements in the description of the property; for it is fundamental that every part of a description should be considered and given effect in construing its meaning; hence it follows that a person seeking information from a delinquent tax notice must not shut his eyes to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial