Meneice v. The Blackstone Mining Company, Ltd., 6932

• Decision Date: 14 January 1942
• Docket Number: 6932
• Citation: 63 Idaho 413,121 P.2d 450
• Parties: ROBERT MENEICE, Appellant, v. THE BLACKSTONE MINING COMPANY, LIMITED, also known as Blackstone Mining Company, Ltd., a corporation, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

121 P.2d 450

63 Idaho 413

ROBERT MENEICE, Appellant, v. THE BLACKSTONE MINING COMPANY, LIMITED, also known as Blackstone Mining Company, Ltd., a corporation, Respondent

No. 6932

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 14, 1942

TAXATION-ASSESSMENT ROLL-TAX DEED-DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES, SUFFICIENCY OF.

1. Where assessment roll of Elmore county gave name and address of owner of mining claims and description of property consisted of names of mineral locations and assessment roll did not contain reference or tie to any natural object or permanent monument and did not mention fact that claims were patented or refer to any mineral monument or public land survey or name mining district in which claims were located and the tax deed contained same description appearing on the assessment roll, the description on assessment roll and in tax deed was insufficient to pass title. (I. C. A. secs 46-602, 61-220.)

2. The acquisition of a tax title by county or state is a purely ex parte, unilateral "proceeding in rem" and requires more particularity of description than is required in a contract for sale or deed or other bilateral contract or agreement.

3. A valid tax title may not be based on an assessment roll and tax deed containing a description insufficient to enable one to examine the record and there to acquire sufficient data to enable him to locate the land taxed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Elmore County. Hon. Charles E. Winstead, Judge.

Action to quiet title to mining claims. Judgment for respondent. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Perce Hall, for Appellant.

For taxation purposes a description by which the land assessed can be readily identified is a sufficient description. (Corson v. Crocker (Calif.) 161 P. 287; 26 R. C. L 357, Section 314; Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.) Vol. 3, page 2365; I. C. A. 61-220.)

The designation or description of land by the name by which it is commonly known is sufficient for assessment purposes. (Cooley on Taxation (4th ed.) Vol. 3, page 2374; People v Leet, 23 Calif. 161; High v. Shoemaker, 22 Calif. 363; 61 C. J. 722; 16 Am. Jur. 591.)

A description of a patented mining claim by name is sufficient for assessment purposes and the land can be readily identified from such description. (Territory v. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Company (Ariz.) 108 P. 960.)

James H. Hawley and Hawley & Hawley, for Respondent.

The description of the property, as contained in the tax deed from the treasurer of Elmore County to Elmore County, in the deed from Elmore County to the appellant, in the assessment roll, and in the notice to respondent of pending issue of tax deed, is uncertain, indefinite and insufficient and cannot be used as a proper basis upon which to predicate a valid tax title. (Washington State Sugar Co. v. Goodrich, 27 Idaho 26; 147 P. 1073; Federal Land Bank v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 51 Idaho 490; 6 P.2d 486; Call v. Drake, 61 Idaho 299; 100 P.2d 949; Idaho Code Annotated, Sec. 61-220; Wilson v. Jarron, 23 Idaho 563; 131 P. 12; Western Loan Co. v. Bandell, 57 Idaho 101; 63 P.2d 159; Little v. Burlingham, 33 Idaho 757, 198 P. 464.)

AILSHIE, J. Givens, C.J., and Budge and Holden, JJ., concur, Morgan, J., concurs in the conclusion.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain lode mining claims in Elmore county. Appellant is a resident of Hill City; respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this state. The action was instituted July 31, 1940, by filing a complaint.

Appellant claims title to the property through purchase from Elmore county; and the county's title rested solely upon a tax deed issued May 13, 1940, by the treasurer for delinquent taxes for the year 1932. Respondent was the original owner and taxpayer. The property was assessed on the assessment roll of Elmore county as follows: "Name and address of owner or reputed owner"--"Blackstone Mining Co., Boise, Idaho c/o Hawley & Hawley." In the column marked "Subdivision," the property is described as "Kentucky Lode, Ohio Lode, Illinois Lode, Iowa Lode, Oregon Lode." No other identification appears on the assessment roll. The delinquency entry and notice of pending issuance of tax deed added nothing to the assessment description. The tax deed contained the same description appearing on the assessment roll.

It was stipulated at the trial that the claims named on the assessment roll "are shown by the plat book in the Assessor's office of Elmore County to be in Sections 13, 14, and 15, in Township 2 South of Range 10 East of the Boise Meridian." The sections and township designation, however, are not referred to on the assessment roll; neither is any reference made to the plat book. The deed from Elmore county to the appellant simply described the property as a "parcel of land situated in the County of Elmore, State of Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Oregon Lodes."

The trial court found and held, that the description, on the assessment roll and in the deed conveying the property, was not sufficient compliance with the law to pass title; and that appellant showed no title or right of possession to the property and that he had no title to quiet. (Sec. 61-220, I. C. A.) A decree was accordingly entered in favor of the respondents. The court, however, awarded the plaintiff judgment for $ 45.00, the amount of money paid to the county which represented the taxes and penalties for the two years.

The decision of the case turns on the sufficiency of the description of the property, as contained on the assessment roll and in the deed of conveyance to the county.

Appellant places great reliance on Old Republic Mining Company v. Ferry Company, 69 Wash. 600, 125 P. 1018, wherein two mining claims were described as the "Republic Lode" and the "Cecelia Lode." These were patented claims but it does not appear from the opinion whether the fact of their being patented was referred to on either the assessment roll or deed. However, a foreclosure suit was prosecuted under the Washington statute which resulted in entering judgment foreclosing the tax lien; and the action by the original owner (the Old Republic Mining Co.), to quiet its title to the claims, was held to be a collateral attack on the judgment in foreclosure; and that "all intendments are in favor of the regularity of the judgment." The Washington authorities (including the Old Republic case, which was cited) were reviewed in the recent case of Napier v. Runkel, 9 Wash.2d 246, 114 P.2d 534, 540, wherein the court made the following announcement as to the rule of law:

"In a proceeding in rem, such as a tax foreclosure by a county, jurisdiction of the res must clearly appear. Property sought to be foreclosed should be so described as to admit of its identification by recourse to official records, or at least by some means which may be referred to as common or general knowledge, concerning which accurate information may easily be obtained." (Italics ours.)

Another case relied on by appellant is Territory v. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co., 13 Ariz. 198, 108 P. 960; affirmed, 233 U.S. 87, 34 S.Ct. 546, 58 L.Ed. 863. In that case the name of the taxpayer was given as "Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co." In the next column, entitled "Description of," the property is described as "--Bisbee--" "65 Patented Mining Claims." The foregoing is followed by 65 names of the claims assessed. Under the head, "Number of Acres" is "636"; Valuation of Lands, "3,180.00"; "Value of Improvements, 55,431.00."

An examination of the opinion in the latter case discloses a somewhat different statute...