Mut. Inv. & Agency Co. v. Albuquerque Farm & Ranch Land Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1928
• Docket Number: No. 3202.,3202.
• Citation: 275 P. 92,34 N.M. 10
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Parties: MUTUAL INVESTMENT & AGENCY CO.v.ALBUQUERQUE FARM & RANCH LAND CO.

34 N.M. 10

275 P. 92

MUTUAL INVESTMENT & AGENCY CO.

v.ALBUQUERQUE FARM & RANCH LAND CO.

No. 3202.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 6, 1928.Rehearing Denied March 6, 1929.

Syllabus by the Court.

A claim of payment, as a defense to a tax title, under Laws 1899, c. 22, § 25, is not necessarily defeated by a tax roll description, insufficient in itself to identify the land, since such defective description may be aided by extrinsic evidence.

Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Helmick, Judge.

Action by the Mutual Investment & Agency Company against the Albuquerque Farm & Ranch Land Company.From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed and remanded.

Claim of payment as defense to tax title is not necessarily defeated by tax roll description, insufficient in itself to identify land.Laws 1899, c. 22, § 25.

Hanna & Wilson and J. W. Norment, all of Albuquerque, for appellant.

Downer & Keleher, of Albuquerque, for appellee.

WATSON, J.

Mutual Investment & Agency Company, a corporation, relying upon an assessment, sale, and deed, for 1908 taxes, assessed upon the Pajarita grant, 28,700 acres, owners unknown, and so conveyed by Bernalillo county, and upon mesne conveyances, claimed the right of possession of some 800 acres of said grant, and sued Albuquerque Farm & Ranch Land Company, a corporation, to recover it.The defendant claimed payment of the 1908 taxes upon the lands in question under several assessments in parcels.

The only issue submitted to the jury was whether the taxes for 1908 had been paid by defendant's predecessors in interest on any portion of the lands claimed.The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff as to two designated tracts and for the defendant as to the remainder.Upon the verdict judgment was entered, awarding to each party some 400 acres of the lands in dispute.Plaintiff appealed.

Appellant says that its sixteen assignments of error rest upon one legal proposition, and so are not presented separately.The broad contention, as we understand it, is that, disregarding evidence improperly admitted over objection, there is no substantial evidence that any of the assessments relied upon by appellee, and upon which it claims that the taxes for 1908 had been paid, were for lands lying within the 800-acre tract in question.Hence, it is contended, a verdict should have been directed, upon appellant's motion, for its whole claim, and this court should reverse the judgment, with a direction that judgment be entered for appellant.

The legal proposition upon which appellant relies is that the descriptions appearing on the tax roll are insufficient in themselves to identify any lands within the tract in question, and that extrinsic evidence cannot be resorted to for the purpose.Appellant relies upon Manby v. Voorhees, 27 N. M. 511, 203 P. 543;State v. Board of Trustees, 32 N. M. 182, 253 P. 22;King v. Doherty(N. M.)258 P. 569;Security Investment & Development Co. v. Gross, Kelly & Co., No. 3127(N. M.)271 P. 95.In these caseswe have indeed laid down the rule that extrinsic evidence is not to be received in aid of a tax roll description insufficient to identify the land; the assessments being under Laws 1899, c. 22.These cases, however, all relate to the sufficiency of assessments to support a sale of lands by the county for nonpayment of taxes.They are not necessarily controlling or in point upon the question here involved.In order to divest an owner's title by hostile proceedings for nonpayment of taxes, there must, of course, be substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.It does not follow that the owner, in order to prevent his land being taken by the public, is to be held to the same strictness.To sustain a divestiture of the owner's title, it was required of an assessment that it show “a description by legal sub-divisions, or...