Turner v. Hand County

• Decision Date: 17 December 1898
• Citation: 11 S.D. 348,77 N.W. 589
• Parties: MARTHA A. TURNER, Plaintiff and appellant, v. HAND COUNTY, Defendant and respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

11 S.D. 348

77 N.W. 589

MARTHA A. TURNER, Plaintiff and appellant,

v.

HAND COUNTY, Defendant and respondent. South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from Circuit Court, Hand County, SD Hon. Loring E. Gaffy, Judge Reversed John L. Pyle and L. H. Hole Attorneys for appellant. S. V. Ghrist Attorneys for respondent. Opinion filed December 17, 1898

FULLER, J.

Claiming to he the fee-simple owner in possession of the S½ of the SE¼ and the S½ of the SW¼ of section 30 in township 113, range 69; in Hand County, S. D., plaintiff instituted this action to quiet title thereto by setting aside a tax deed issued on the 25th day of August, 1896, by the county treasurer to the defendant county, in favor of whom judgment in the circuit court was entered, from which plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

In the proceedings of the taxing officers, including the tax list and duplicate, appellants’ land was described as follows, and not otherwise:

Name

Description of Land.

Subdivision.

Mattie A. Turner

s2se&s2sw

Sec. or

Lot

Twp.

or

Blk

Rng.

30

113

69

Section 1544 of the Compiled Laws provides that

“… The list of taxable property assessed to each person shall contain: (1) His lands by township, range and section, and any division or part of a section or numbered fractional lot of any section lying in the county in which the list is required. And when such parcel of land is not a congressional division or subdivision, it shall be listed and described in some other mode sufficient to identify it. (2) His town lots, naming the town in which they are situated, and their proper description by number and block or otherwise according to the system of numbering in the town.”

The foregoing is not such a tax list as the statute contemplates, nor is the description sufficient to identify anything according to the congressional system, or any other method of description pertaining to land, whether it be city property or fractional outlying lots. The combination “s2se & s2sw sec. or lot 30 twp. or blk 113 rng. 69” is an idealess jumble of letters and figures, confusing in the extreme, and intolerable when employed as a means by which to divest title to real estate without the consent of the owner. That a tax sale of property not described in the assessment roll is void, and passes no title to the purchaser, is a proposition in perfect consonance with reason, conclusively established by authority. VanCise v. Carter,(1896); Black, Tax Titles, § 112; Power v. Larabee, 49 N.W. 724; Woods v. Freeman, 1 Wall. 398; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201, 2 N.W. 497; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 339.

Of the amount for which the property was sold $60 was levied pursuant to Chapter 14, Laws 1889, as a direct artesian well assessment, without any notice or opportunity for appellant to appear and be heard, and without respect to value, equality, or uniformity; and among the points urged and relied upon by counsel for appellant is that the statute authorizing such proceedings is unconstitutional and void. Like all other states, our constitution (Article 6, § 2) provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and agreeable to an unruffled current of authority this court has held that “an opportunity to be heard at some stage of the proceedings is a...