Hamilton v. Brownsville Gaslight Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1905
• Citation: 90 S.W. 159
• Parties: HAMILTON et al. v. BROWNSVILLE GASLIGHT CO. et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

90 S.W. 159

HAMILTON et al. v.BROWNSVILLE GASLIGHT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 15, 1905.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Haywood County; John S. Cooper, Chancellor.

Bill by G. G. Hamilton and others against the Brownsville Gaslight Company and others.From a part of the decree rendered, complainants appeal.Reversed.

J. W. E. Moore and Robt.E. King, for appellants.Kinney & Wills and Bate Bond, for appellees.

WILKES, J.

This is a bill to foreclose a deed of trust made by the light company, and to remove a cloud upon the title to a part of the property embraced in the deed of trust, caused by a tax deed made by the clerk of the circuit court of Haywood county to the defendantBrownsville Cotton Oil Company.

The chancellor gave judgment for the amount of the debt, $4,247, and a decree to foreclose the deed of trust, but dismissed the bill as to the property held by the oil company under the tax deed.Complainants prayed an appeal from so much of the decree as refused them the relief as against the tax deed of the oil company.

The oil company prayed an appeal from certain provisions of the decree, but does not appear to have given bond, and perfected the same; and it need not, therefore, be further noticed, as complainants prayed only a special or partial appeal.

Quite a number of errors are assigned, but we need only notice the last one, as, in our opinion, it is conclusive of the case.

This assignment is, in substance, that the lists of sales filed by the trustee with the circuit court clerk fail to show the amount of taxes, interest, costs, and penalties, in dollars and cents.They are, therefore, irregular, and divest no title out of the taxpayer, and vest none in the purchaser, and all proceedings based upon such lists are void and of no effect.

Examining the lists as they appear in the record, so far as they relate to this particular property, it appears that it was sold to the state of Tennessee.It further appears that there are certain figures entered on the lists between perpendicular lines, but there is nothing to show or indicate what is meant by these figures.There is no dollar mark attached to any of them, nor does the dollar mark appear anywhere upon the lists, except in the valuation of the property.

It has been held in a number of cases that the absence of the dollar mark to indicate what is meant by the figures in the assessment of property is fatal to the assessment, and that perpendicular lines between the figures, separating them, will not suffice to make the assessment good.

The question is fully treated in Barnes v. Brown, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 740.

The holding in that case is followed in the case of Anderson v. Post(Tenn. Ch. App.)38 S. W. 283, which case is approved by the case of Dunn v....