Opinion
No. 30496.
March 27, 1933. Suggestion of Error Overruled April 24, 1933.
1. EVIDENCE.
Matter of assessment and tax receipt held subject to explanation by parol evidence in suit to cancel tax deed.
2. TAXATION.
Where there was double assessment, and owner had paid correct amount of taxes due, tax sale was void, and tax deed was properly canceled.
APPEAL from Chancery Court of Harrison County.
J.F. Galloway, of Gulfport, for appellant.
The court will note that no dimensions of the lot are given. It could therefore front in any width on Clarence avenue to suit the taste or imagination of anybody and no surveyor could survey out its boundaries.
There was no assessment of any land, therefore the deed was a nullity.
Paterson et al. v. Morgan, 138 So. 362, 161 Miss. 807; Neal v. Sheppard, 157 Miss. 734.
It is said that Bedou thought he was paying on the land he owned. It is with respect submitted that it was his duty to know his own land and to pay on it.
Crawford v. McLaurin, 83 Miss. 265, 35 So. 209; Neal v. Sheppard, 157 Miss. 734; Dodds v. Marks, 63 Miss. 443; McQueen v. Bush, 76 Miss. 383, 24 So. 196.
There are no dimensions of the tract given nor is there any acreage or anything else referred to, which would show the size of the lot. Under the conditions it is with respect submitted that no surveyor could locate the land. It was therefore a payment of taxes upon no land. The ambiguity is patent and parol testimony is incompetent under the circumstances.
J.L. Taylor, of Gulfport, for appellee.
"A failure to observe the requirements of the last preceding section shall not vitiate any assessment, if the land be so described as to be identified; and it shall be sufficient identification of land to describe it as the land of ____ (the person owning or claiming it), occupied by ____; or that part of (section or other known division designating it) owned or claimed by ____; or the lot on which ____ resides; or the lot occupied by ____; or by the name by which it may be known; or by any description which will furnish a sure guide for the ascertainment by parol evidence of the particular land intended."
Section 3148 of the Code of 1930; Dodds v. Marx, 63 Miss. 443.
Parol testimony may be used to aid and explain the terms of an assessment roll in identifying lands therein described.
Standard Drug Co. v. Pierce, 111 Miss. 354; Albritton v. Fairley, 116 Miss. 705; Martin v. Smith, 140 Miss. 168.
The appellee, Bedou, filed a bill in the chancery court of Harrison county to cancel a tax deed to certain lots situated in Pass Christian, Mississippi, alleging that he had paid the taxes on the land embraced in the tax deed, and that there was a double assessment of the property involved.
The land was assessed on the roll as shown in the tax receipt as "1 lot S. by Jones, N. by Hunter, E. by Clarence, W. by Burke, Pass Christian." The other assessment under which the tax sale was made, is "1 lot 90 ft. front, Section 26, T. 8, R. 13, S. by Jones, E. by Clarence Ave., N. by Smith, W. by Burke."
It was agreed in the record that the appellant was the owner if the tax sale was valid, and that the appellee was the owner if the assessment and payment of taxes constituted a valid payment thereof.
A map was introduced in evidence made by J.F. Galloway, which was agreed to be a correct description of the property, and that the land marked thereon "Bedou" is the property involved.
The proof showed that the land intended to be described in each assessment is the same identical land, and that it faces east on Clarence avenue, and is bounded on the south by Jones, on the north by Bonner, and on the west by Burke.
We think the parol evidence introduced was competent, and that the proof was sufficient to justify the chancellor's decree. The matter of the assessment and the tax receipt was subject to explanation by parol evidence, and such evidence was sufficient to establish the fact that the taxes had been paid upon the correct land owned by the appellee at the time the assessment was made and the taxes paid thereon.
There being a double assessment, and the owner having paid on his property the correct amount of taxes due thereon, the tax sale was void, and the chancellor did not err in canceling it. The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.