Miller v. Hale
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Citation | 26 Pa. 432 |
| Parties | Miller versus Hale. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Alricks and Reed, for plaintiff in error.
Parker and Casey, contrà.
Two tax sales were made of the land in controversy on the same day, one by the treasurer of Mifflin county, the other by the treasurer of Juniata county; and the general question on the trial was, which of them conferred the best title. The plaintiff claims under the Mifflin county sale, the defendant under that in Juniata. The opinion of the court below was with the plaintiff, and to their ruling several errors are assigned, which I proceed to notice in the order in which they stand upon the record.
1. There was no error in admitting the book of assessments, admitted "to be a book from the commissioners' office, in Mifflin county." The Act of Assembly, making certified extracts from such books competent evidence, does not exclude the originals when properly authenticated, and though they cannot be produced and authenticated by persons having no official custody of them (9 Watts 311, and 1 W. & Ser. 282), it is quite competent for the parties to admit their authenticity. The defendant did so in this instance, and thus he made the book evidence for whatever its contents proved, touching the land in question. The book showed an assessment of taxes for the years 1823, '24, and '25, upon the unseated tract of land surveyed in the name of Philip Darr, — 403 acres 137 perches, valued at $403.
2. The second error relates to the treasurer's deed to the plaintiff. In the bill of exceptions it is described as a deed Charles Ritz to R. C. Hale, dated 12th June, 1838, for 403 acres 137 perches of land in Derry township, Mifflin county, for the year 1822 and up to 1836, inclusive. Sold for $5.20; consideration paid $9.05, being amount of taxes and costs. Surveyed in name of William Darr. Taxes $2.20." This deed was objected to on the ground that it was not for the land assessed and sold — that the assessment was for Fermanagh township — the deed is for land in Derry. The plaintiff thereupon proved that the land is in Fermanagh township, Juniata county, and that there is no such tract in Derry township, Mifflin county; and then the court admitted the deed in evidence.
The deed is not furnished us by either party, but in the counter statement of the plaintiff it is asserted to be in the name of Philip Darr, and that the name of William Darr came into the bill of exceptions by "an inadvertence in taking a memorandum of the deed by the court." This statement though not contradicted, cannot be received to countervail the bill sealed by the court. The object of a bill of exceptions is to place facts that transpire in the court below upon the record, that they may be reviewed. Where a document is briefly described in a bill, and not furnished in extenso, we are to take it as described. The bill is the highest evidence before us of what the document was.
The question, then, upon this deed was, whether it described the land assessed, and that was properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact. That land, by whatever name it was sold, was the debtor for the taxes imposed, and if it was sold and conveyed to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the assessment, he acquired a good title. The name of the warrantee and of the township are circumstances of designation, but not conclusive. The identity of the tract assessed must be fixed to the satisfaction of the jury, — if by the warrantee and the township, very well — if by other circumstances of designation, equally well: 1 W. & Ser. 166; 4 Harris 404. The evidence here tended to identify the tract conveyed with that assessed and sold; and having proved satisfactory to the jury, it must be so to us.
3. It is next complained of that the court expressed their satisfaction with the testimony of Major Hough, as to the identity of the land. It has never been accounted error for a judge, in fairly submitting a question of fact, to intimate his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinton v. Johnson
...22 Am. Rep. 442; City of Camden v. Allen, 26 N.J.L. 398; Gatling v. Commissioners of Carteret County, 92 N.C. 536, 53 Am. Rep. 432; Miller v. Hale, 26 Pa. 432; Shaw Peckett, 26 Vt. 482; State v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 128 Wis. 449, 108 N.W. 594; Hinchman v. Morris, 29 W.Va. 673, 2 S.E. 863; L......
-
Silliman v. William Whitmer & Sons
...warrantee names upon which the alleged trespass was committed: Grant v. Eddy, 2 Yeates 148; Stewart v. Shoenfelt, 13 S. & R. 360; Miller v. Hale, 26 Pa. 432. The second assignment overruled. Even if John C. Smith's paper title to three of the ten tracts was defective that furnished no valid......
-
De Roux v. Girard's Ex'r
...and Theodore Cuyler. The effect of such a tax sale is to extinguish all previous titles, and put a good title in the purchaser. Miller v. Hale, 26 Pa. 432. of the sale to Donaldson, the court below in its opinion said: 'There is no evidence of any kind to impeach the regularity, fairness, o......
-
Mercantile Trust & Deposit Company of Baltimore v. Mellon
... ... Andover & Medford Turnpike Co. v. Gould, 6 Mass. 44, ... Hibbard v. Clark, 56 N.H. 155, Johnson v ... Howard, 41 Vt. 122, and Miller v. Hale, 26 Pa ... 2. The ... taxing power must have jurisdiction of the person or property ... taxed. If over both, both may be made ... ...