Slaughter v. City of Dallas

• Decision Date: 29 January 1908
• Parties: SLAUGHTER v. CITY OF DALLAS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

107 S.W. 48

SLAUGHTER v. CITY OF DALLAS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January 29, 1908.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Action by the city of Dallas against C. C. Slaughter. From the judgment (103 S. W. 218), defendant brings error. Reversed in part, and remanded, with instructions.

K. R. Craig, for plaintiff in error. J. J. Collins and Jno. C. Robertson, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C. J.

This suit was brought by the city of Dallas to recover of defendant, Slaughter, back taxes due the city for the years 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896 upon a certain lot described in the petition, and to enforce a lien thereon. The trial was had before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the city for the full amount claimed and for the enforcement of a lien upon the property. Upon appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reformed the judgment, so as to relieve Slaughter for personal liability for the taxes, but decreed that the judgment should be enforced as a lien upon the property.

In 1898 C. C. Slaughter bought the property of G. G. Wright. Previous to the sale there had been an assessment or an attempted assessment of taxes upon the lot in favor of the city for each of the years 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896. For the year 1893, in the attempted assessment, the property is described as follows: "Name of owner, unknown. No. of acres, ____. No. lots, 25×100. No. of block, 61. Value grounds, $7,875. Value of improvements, $2,000. Description, Main street." For all the other years the description was as follows: "Name of owner, G. G. Wright. No. of acres, ____. No. lots, 25×100. No. block, 61. Value ground, $7,875. Value of improvements, $2,000. Description, Main street."

We think so much of the description as calls for "No. lots, 25×100," is intended to give the dimensions, and not the number of the lot. The number not being given, and there being other lots of the same dimensions in the block and being assessed to unknown owner, there is nothing by which the lot assessed in 1893 can be identified. Is there anything in the description by which it can be made certain which particular lot is meant? We think not, and that therefore the assessment for that year is invalid.

But with regard to the assessments for the other years the case is different. In each of them it is stated, in effect, that G. G. Wright is the owner of the lot, which is the same as if it had been added, "which lot is owned by G. G. Wright." By ascertaining what lot Wright owned in the block, it can be definitely ascertained what particular lot is meant, and the rule, "That is certain which can be made certain," applies. This was decided...