Judd v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 09 June 1879
• Citation: Judd v. Anderson, 51 Iowa 345, 1 N.W. 677 (Iowa 1879)
• Parties: M. A. JUDD, APPELLEE, v. IRA W. ANDERSON, APPELLANT. BATEMAN H. GOE, APPELLEE, v. J. E. HETHERINGTON, IRA W. ANDERSON AND JOHN F. LACEY, APPELLANTS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

51 Iowa 345

1 N.W. 677

M. A. JUDD, APPELLEE,

v.IRA W. ANDERSON, APPELLANT.

BATEMAN H. GOE, APPELLEE,

v.J. E. HETHERINGTON, IRA W. ANDERSON AND JOHN F. LACEY, APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 9, 1879.

Appeal from Mahaska district court.

The above cases are submitted together upon the same abstract.The plaintiffM. A. Judd claims of the defendantIra W. Anderson seven hundred dollars, on account of an alleged breach of warranty in the sale to the plaintiff of certain land described in the petition.The plaintiff, Bateman H. Goe, claims of the defendantJ. E. Hetherington one hundred and fifty dollars and interest, on account of certain damages claimed by the C. R. I. & P. R. R. Co. to said Hetherington, for right of way over certain premises described by plaintiff in his petition, and which he claims to own.The defendantsIra W. Anderson and John F. Lacey were substituted in place of James E. Hetherington, as defendants.They claim that they are the owners of the land upon which the damages in question were assessed, and that they were such owners at the time of the assessment; that said damages were paid over to them at the time of the assessment, and that plaintiff has no right thereto.All the land in controversy in both actions was originally owned by Bateman H. Goe or H. Bateman Goe, which names it is conceded refer to the same person.The defendantIra W. Anderson claims that he acquired title to said land in virtue of a tax sale and deed for the delinquent taxes of 1869 and 1870.The defendantIra W. Anderson conveyed a part of said land to the plaintiff, M. A. Judd, and an undivided one-half to the defendantJohn F. Lacey.The real and only question in the two cases is as to the validity of the defendant Anderson's tax title.The court below held that the title was invalid, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff Judd, against the defendant Anderson, for five hundred and forty dollars and costs, and in favor of the plaintiff Goe, against the defendant Hetherington, for one hundred and sixty dollars.The defendants appeal.The further material facts are stated in the opinion.John F. Lacey and Wm. Kennedy, for the appellants.

M. E. Cutts, for the appellees.

DAY, J.

--At the time of the assessment and sale for delinquent taxes in controversy, Bateman H. Goe owned a tract of land described as follows: “Commencing at the south-east corner of the north-east 1/4 of north-west 1/4 of sections 19,75,15; running thence west 14.60 chains; thence north fifteen degrees east, 5.90 chains; thence east 13.10 chains; thence south 5.73 chains to place of beginning, containing 7.936 acres.”It is plain, from the foregoing description, that the land owned by Goe is in form a trapezoid.It is situated in the south-east corner of the forty in question.It is 22.92 rods wide, from north to south, 52.4 rods long on the shorter side, and 58.4 rods long on the longer side.Goe owned no other land in the county.In 1869 an assessment of real estate was made as follows: “Bateman H. Goe, east 2/3, south 1/2, south 1/2, north-east, north-west 19, 75, 15, 7 1/2 acres, value per acre, forty dollars; value of land, three hundred dollars.”This description, it will be observed, also covers land situated in the south-east corner of the tract in question.If we discard from it the description asto the number of acres, it covers a tract twenty rods wide, from north to south, and 53 1/3 rods long, almost identical with the land owned by Goe, and almost entirely included within it, containing six and two-thirds acres, or a little less than one and one-third acres less than the tract, in fact, owned by Goe.This assessment clearly authorized the sale of a tract of land in the south-east corner of the north-east 1/4 of north-west 1/4 of section 19, 75, 15, twenty rods wide and 53 1/3 rods long, containing six and two-thirds acres.In the certificate of purchase the land is described as follows: “Owner's name, B. H. Goe.Description of property, south-east part, north-east, north-west, section 19, township 75, range 15, acres 7 1/2.”This description is equivalent to saying the 7 1/2 acres owned by B. H. Goe, in the south-east part of the north-east 1/4 of the north-west 1/4 of section 19, township 75, range 15.As it is admitted that B. H. Goe owned but one tract of land in the county, and that it was situated in the south-east part of the forty in question, the certificate of purchase contains the date for applying the description to the land, in fact, owned by B. H. Goe, and it covers so much of it as is embraced in the assessment.Parol evidence is admissible, not for the purpose of adding to or varying the description contained in the certificate of purchase, but of applying that description to its subject matter; and when it is shown that B. H. Goe owned uoe tract of land, and but one in the north-east 1/4, north-west 1/4, 19, 75, 15, the description, the tract of land owned by B. H. Goe, in the south-east part of the north-east 1/4 of the north-west...