Roberts v. Welsh

• Decision Date: 19 June 1906
• Citation: 192 Mass. 278,78 N.E. 408
• Parties: ROBERTS v. WELSH (two cases). YOUNG v. PARKER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

192 Mass. 278

78 N.E. 408

ROBERTS

v.WELSH (two cases).

YOUNG

v.PARKER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 19, 1906.

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Edgar J. Sherman, Judge.

Consolidated suits-two by one Roberts against one Welsh, and by one Young against one Parker. Cases reported from the superior court. Bills dismissed in the suits brought by Roberts against Welsh, and decree for plaintiff in suit byYoung against Parker.N. D. A. Clarke, for plaintiffs.

Jos. Bennett and Wm. A. Parker, for defendants.

KNOWLTON, C. J.

These are three bills in equity, each brought to remove a cloud from the plaintiff's title to certain real estate, caused by a deed from the collector of taxes held by the defendant. In each case the title of the plaintiff is admitted, except so far as it is affected by the sale for nonpayment of taxes under which the defendant claims. There were three separate sales, for the taxes of three different years, namely, 1900, 1901 and 1902. In the first suit the defendant claims under the sale of the nonpayment of the taxes of 1900, in the second, under the sale to collect the tax of 1901, and in the third under the sale to collect the tax for the next year. The only questions before us relate to the validity of the deeds made in pursuance of these three sales. In each case the deed is attacked on three grounds, and in each case the plaintiff contends, first, that the tax, on account of which the sale was made, was invalid because the property was assessed to the wrong person, secondly, that it was invalid because there was not a sufficient description of the property in the valuation list, and thirdly, that the description in the deed is incorrect and insufficient. In all other particulars it is conceded by the plaintiffs that the proceedings under which the defendants claim were regular.

1. Were the several assessments made to the right person? In each year the tax was assessed to Willard Welsh as owner. On the 1st day of May in each year he held a title to the property under two deeds previously made to him by the collector, on sales of the property for nonpayment of taxes. These deeds were in proper form and had been duly recorded. No contention has been made that, on their face, they fail to show a valid tax title in the grantee named in them. It is said that on proper proceedings each of them has been held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, on account of errors, as we suppose, in the previous assessment. The question is therefore presented, whether one holding such a deed duly recorded, which purports on its face to be regular and valid, is included in the language, ‘persons appearing in the records of the county where the real estate lies as owners thereof,’ within the meaning of these words in St. 1889, p. 837, c. 84, § 1, (Rev. Laws, c. 12, § 15). We are of opinion that he is. In Butler v. Stark, 139 Mass. 19, 29 N. E. 213, it is decided that a title of record under a tax deed, which is subject to a right of redemption, makes the holder a ‘person appearing of record as owner,’ within Pub. St. 1882, c. 11, § 13. This case is decisive of the question before us. The statute does not put upon the assessors the burden of inquiring into the validity of titles which appear of record to be good.

2. The description of the property in the valuation list was sufficient. It is not intended that such a description should necessarily be accurate in detail for the purpose of a conveyance. It is enough if it fairly designates, for the information of those interested the property intended to be taxed. Bemis v. Caldwell, 143 Mass. 299, 9 N. E. 623.Tobey v. Wareham, 2 Allen, 594;...