Hunt v. Latham

• Decision Date: 15 May 1922
• Citation: 117 A. 94
• Parties: HUNT v. LATHAM.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

117 A. 94

HUNT

v. LATHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 15, 1922.

Report from Superior Court, Androscoggin County, at Law.

Action by Ella I. Hunt against Arthur B. Latham. On report. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, DUNN, MORRILL, and DEASY, JJ.

George C. Wing, Jr., of Auburn, for plaintiff.

Getchell, Hosmer & Garcelon, of Lewiston, for defendant.

MORRILL, J. This real action is submitted for our decision upon an agreed statement of facts which, on account of its brevity, is here copied in full:

"That plaintiff at the time of the bringing of the action had title to the property in question unless the tax deed relied upon by the defendant was valid.

"And it was agreed that all the statutory requirements were fulfilled with the exception of the sufficiency of description in the tax deed and in the assessment.

"The description in the tax deed is: 'The following described real estate situated in said city of Auburn, to wit: Grand View Hotel, West Auburn.'

"The record of the commitment and assessment relating to the property in question in various columns is as follows: In the column provided for the name of person taxed appeared Edna N. Pope, care of Mr. Scott, Franklin Real Estate Trust, Journal Building, Boston, Mass.; in the column entitled 'description of Real Estate' appeared 'Grand View Hotel, West Auburn'; under the column entitled 'Value of land' appeared the figures $100; under the column entitled 'Value of Buildings' appeared the figures $1,500; and under the column 'Total Assessment' appeared the figures $1,600.

"It is admitted that April 1, 1916, Edna N. Pope was nonresident owner of the premises, and was so described in the tax deed."

Thus the validity of the tax deed relied upon by defendant is the issue submitted for our decision, and that issue is still further narrowed to the sufficiency of the description in the tax deed and in the assessment.

In French v. Patterson, 61 Me. 203, the rule governing this question is thus stated:

"The statute does not require, nor is it often practicable that the assessors of taxes should give a minute description of the nonresident lands assessed by them. It is sufficient if they so describe them in their assessment that they can be identified with reasonable certainty."

In Inhabitants of Orono v. Veazie, 61 Me. 433, it is said:

"The description of the real estate assessed, in this class of cases, must be certain, or refer to something by which it can be made certain."

We think that the description before us conforms to these requirements.

The property was assessed as real estate; the land and buildings were valued separately as required by law in case of real estate; the property was described by a name indicative of the uses to which it was put, and the section of the city where it was situated is given. Such a description must be held to include the land appertaining to the hotel building and used with it for the purposes of a hotel. 3 Washburn on Real Property (4th Ed.) p. 397, Bk. 3, c. 5, § 4, pars. 83, 34; Maddox v. Goddard, 15 Me....