Hurd v. City of Melrose

• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Citation: 78 N.E. 302,191 Mass. 576
• Parties: HURD v. CITY OF MELROSE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

191 Mass. 576

78 N.E. 302

HURD v. CITY OF MELROSE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 17, 1906

COUNSEL

Foster Rogers, for petitioner.

Frank L. Washburn and John M. Gibbs, for respondent.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

This is a petition to register title to the house and land numbered 416 on Grove street in Melrose. The only question is whether the taking of the land for the nonpayment of the taxes assessed in 1902 is valid.

The land is the rear portion of lot 272 on a certain plan, and it contains upwards of 5,000 square feet. There is upon it a dwelling house which for many years has been numbered 416 Grove street by a metal plate on the outside of the front door. This land was owned by one Myers. The front part of lot 272 was owned by one Crossman, and contained 3,584 square feet. Upon this was a house which for many years had been numbered in a similar way 418-420 Grove street. In this state of things the assessors made the following entries upon their book of assessments for 1902:

'No 418-420 Grove street, George W. Hurd and August Myers owners; area 5,079 square feet; assessed as follows: $250, land; house, $1,400; tax for year 1902, $28.38.

'No. 416 Grove Street, Nellie Crossman, owner; area 3,584 square feet; assessed as follows: Land, $200; house, $600; tax for the year 1902, $13.76.'

It was the intention of the assessors to assess to Nellie Crossman the front lot and to Hurd and Myers the rear lot, to the amount and in the particular way described in these entries; and the only error is that the front lot is described as 416 and the rear lot as Nos. 418-420. But as it stood upon the books each assessment when applied to the lot assessed was ambiguous and misleading. No. 416 was not owned by Crossman, nor was the lot only 3,584 feet in area, nor was the house worth more than the other; and a corresponding misdescription appears as to Nos. 418-420.

After the warrant had been sent to the collector, he, in accordance with a request made to him by Rogers as the owner of a mortgage upon No. 416, sent to him what purported to be the tax bill for No. 416. This bill named Crossman as the owner and Rogers as the mortgagee, and described the property as 'No. 416 on Grove street, part of 272.' It did not show the number of square feet in the lot. Shortly afterwards Rogers requested Myers, then the owner, to pay the tax, and he received from Myers the amount of the tax, which he then sent to the collector, from whom in due time he received the bill receipted. Rogers had no personal knowledge as to whether Crossman on May 1, 1902, was the owner of either house, although he held a...