448 Pa. 239 | Pa. | 1972
Opinion by
Appellants, the heirs of Charles Blanchard (“the heirs”), brought this action in ejectment against the New York State Natural Gas Corporation (“Gas Company”)
The facts are complicated and must be set forth in some detail. Charles Blanchard died on July 23, 1885,
The 153-acre Johnston tract, also known as the Blanchard farm, had been assessed by Union Township and Clearfield County to Charles Blanchard on the seated list since 1883, first as 100 acres, and commencing in 1895 as 130 acres.
In 1912, the 306 mineral acres on the unseated list were sold by Treasurer’s deed to the County Commissioners of Clearfield County for unpaid 1910 and 1911 taxes owed by the Blanchard Estate. In 1916 the 153-acre mineral tract assessed on the seated list, then in the name of the Blanchard Estate, was likewise sold by Treasurer’s deed to the County Commissioners for non-payment of 1913 and 1914 taxes.
The appellee Game Commission traces its ownership of the mineral tract in question from the 1916 tax sale. To support its claim, the following deeds were introduced into evidence in the lower court: (1) a 1918 deed from Johnston to one Zack Marsh transferring the surface 153 acres; (2) a 1919 Commissioner’s deed to Marsh for the mineral rights to the 153-acre tract, thus effecting a merger of the surface and mineral titles; (3) a 1935 sheriff’s deed (presumably covering the entire fee interest of Zack Marsh pursuant to foreclosure) to the DuBois National Bank with no reservations or exceptions; (4) a 1943 deed from the DuBois National Bank to one Hugh K. Korb; and (5) a 1945 deed from Korb to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for use of the Game Commission. Subsequently, in 1957, a lease for the mineral rights was executed between the Game Commission as lessor and appellee Gas Company as lessee.
With these facts in perspective, it is clear that the two questions presented for our determination are the validity
I.
Appellant, representing the Blanchard heirs, makes three separate attacks on appellee’s title emanating from the 1916 tax sale of 158 mineral acres: (1) that the assessment and deed did not adequately identify the land in question as the Johnston tract; (2) that oil and gas were not included in the assessment and deed; and (3) that the assessment was invalid because it was not in the name of the true owner.
(1) As to identification, “It is the well settled rule of this Commonwealth that no tax sale of land is valid unless both the assessment and the conveyance by the treasurer contain sufficient descriptions to identify and disclose the property taxed and sold. Fisk v. Corey, 141 Pa. 334, 21 A. 594; Lyman v. Philadelphia,
The assessment on the seated list and the Treasurer’s deed referred to the property in similar language; if one fails for vagueness, they both must fail. The annual seated assessment of Union Township for the year 1911 shows “153 mineral—-Blanchard Charles Est.” On the assessment form the second column from the left, after the date column, is captioned “Acres Perches”. In succeeding years, “153 mineral”, which appeared under this heading, was shortened to “153 min”. Appellant’s characterization of the assessment as “153 min” is thus taken out of context. When viewed in light of the 1911 assessment and the column caption, the clear meaning is that it was 153 mineral acres that were being assessed to the Blanchard Estate. The .1916 Treasurer’s deed described the land as “153 acres mineral right situate in the township of Union, purporting to be owned by and assessed in the name of Chas. Blanchard Est.”
We do not accept appellant’s contention that the 153 mineral acres described are not distinguishable from the 20,000 other acres in Union Township, or from the many other parcels in the Township then owned by Blanchard or his estate. The 1904 deed from the estate to the Title Company purported to convey all of Blanchard’s land or interests in land not previously conveyed in Clearfield County. In that deed twelve parcels were described, only some of which were located in Warrant 1990. The sixth paragraph of the
The cases cited by appellant are either readily distinguishable on their facts or give more support to the appellees’ position than to his own. In Boulton v. Starck, 369 Pa. 45, 85 A. 2d 17 (1951), the assessment description “169 A Coal Rt. and 70 A. Coal Rt.” would have been “obviously insufficient” (the Court’s words, 369 Pa. 51), but because the property was assessed to a particular named person, as was done here, the defect was remedied. See also Hess v. Westerwiek, 366 Pa. 90, 76 A. 2d 745 (1950). In Hunter v. McKlveen, supra, “224 acres brush” and “370 acres of land” were held not to pass muster because identification was impossible. As the court explained: “The Blairs owned 54 tracts of land, about five of which were seated. Many of these tracts were contiguous, but some were not. Nevertheless, that land was all lumped together and assessed as four tracts of unseated land. Nowhere does it appear in what manner the 54 tracts were grouped by the assessors to produce the four tracts. Descriptions such as ‘224 acres brush’ and ‘370 acres of land’ are of no aid in determining which of the tracts are included in those assessments. The same tract could be made part of several assessments and the taxpayer would have no means of apprising himself of that fact. . . .” 361 Pa. at 483. Similarly, “lot near Baltimore Avenue, N. Penn Street . . . assessed in the name of John Morgan” was held “wholly inadequate” in Sarous v. Morgan, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 165, 90 A. 2d 353 (1952), because the taxpayer had several lots answering that description. In the instant case, in contrast,
In Wilson v. A. Cook Sons Co., 298 Pa. 85, 148 Atl. 63 (1929), the unseated tax assessment for the years 1892 and 1893 was against “Lowry, W. H. (Heirs) Mineral”. The court held this to be a permissible description, for “mineral” distinctly described the reserved estate, and the property was known in the community as the “Lowry Land”. We have difficulty distinguishing the present case.
That there was in fact no substantial identity question as to the 153-acre tract is illustrated by the acquisitions of Zack Marsh in 1918 and 1919, above referred to. Having purchased the surface estate from David Johnston in the former year, he bought the mineral rights to the same tract from the County Commissioners the latter year. It is unlikely that this would have occurred had not the Johnston tract been identifiable from the Treasurer’s deed to the Commissioners in 1916 (see footnote 8).
(2) Appellant contends that because both the Treasurer’s deed and its underlying assessment referred only to minerals, no oil and gas rights could be conveyed by the 1916 sale. The 1899 deed from Neely to Johnston excepted and reserved all the coal, fire-clay, oil, gas and other minerals. Neely’s 1904 deed to the Title Company conveyed only “mineral rights”, but that indenture’s expressed purpose was to divest the estate of all remaining property pursuant to court decree. It is conceded by appellant that this deed was adequate to convey to the Title Company all oil and gas rights, and was not limited to “hard minerals”. The issue, therefore, is whether the tax assessment and subsequent sale based thereon encompassed less than the Title Company’s full mineral ownership, thus leaving it with
In a normal conveyance between private parties, whether use of the term “minerals” includes or excludes oil and natural gas depends upon application of the rule laid down in Dunham & Shortt v. Kirkpatrick, 101 Pa. 36 (1882), recently reviewed by this Court in Highland v. Commonwealth, 400 Pa. 261, 276, 161 A. 2d 390 (1960): “This decision [Dunham] established a rule of property . . . upon which the validity of many titles has long since rested. The Dunham rule ... is based upon the popular conception of the meaning of the word ‘minerals’. The rule may be briefly stated: if, in connection with a conveyance of land, there is a reservation or an exception of ‘minerals’ without any specific mention of natural gas or oil, a presumption, rebuttable in nature, arises that the word ‘minerals’ was not intended by the parties to include natural gas or oil: Dunham & Shortt v. Kirkpatrick, supra; Silver v. Bush, supra; Preston et al. v. South Penn Oil Company et al., 238 Pa. 301, 86 A. 203; Bundy v. Myers, 372 Pa. 583, 94 A. 2d 724.”
In a tax sale, however, the presumption does not obtain: the deed is based on the assessment and conveys the interests in land which are properly included within the assessment. This was clearly established by our decision in Wilson v. A. Cook Sons Co., supra. In that case, as here, the taxpayer’s ownership of minerals admittedly included oil and gas; the assessment of his interest was of “minerals” only. Taxes became delinquent, and a tax sale was held. The County Treasurer’s deed to the purchaser conveyed only “minerals”. Later the taxpayer claimed that the tax sale had not covered oil and gas. The court held otherwise. Because we consider this case controlling on this phase of the case, we quote at length from the opinion of Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Frazer: “[Wilson] now contends
Appellant further argues that even though a taxing-body purports to assess an entire mineral estate, only minerals known to exist at the time and place are actually valued by the assesors, taxed and later sold if taxes become delinquent. Acceptance of this proposition would undoubtedly lead to confusion and speculation, for no one would know what had actually been sold. Attempts to prove that assessors did or did not know of the presence of oil or gas when they assessed “minerals” at some point in the past would lead to protracted collateral investigation and litigation. It is true, of course, that an assessor can tax only that which has value. Rockwell v. Warren County, 228 Pa. 430, 77 Atl. 665 (1910); if no gas or oil exists, the mineral rights should not be taxed as if they did. Nevertheless, an assessment or sale believed to be improper because of overvaluation cannot be collaterally attacked fifty years later. The owner must petition immediately for exoneration. Wilson v. A. Cook Sons Co., 298 Pa. 85, supra, at 92. Even if such prompt action had been taken here, there is no suggestion that it would have succeeded; appellant does not argue that there is in fact no gas or oil in the Johnston tract. We thus reject these grounds for attack on the validity of the assessment here involved.
(3) Appellant’s final contention as to the invalidity of the 1916 sale pertains to an error in the assessment as to the record owners of the Johnston tract. The assessment of the 153 acres of minerals had been in the name of the “Blanchard Estate” since 1911. Thus neither the legal title owner of record (the Title Company) nor the undisclosed equitable owners (the heirs of Charles Blanchard) were identified by the 1913 and 1914 assessments. Appellant argues, therefore, that these assessments could not serve as the basis for the 1916 tax sale.
The name “Blanchard Estate” might be quite accurate to refer to the equitable interest of the heirs of Charles Blanchard after the conveyance to the Title Company in 1904 as well as before, except that their interest was not a matter of record. This, however, is unimportant. What is important is to determine whether or not the property sold was properly to be considered seated or unseated. If unseated, it is immaterial that the name of the owner as given in the assessment is inaccurate, since no personal liability is involved; the land, not the owner, is looked to for payment of delinquent taxes. As the Court said in Franklin Coal Co. v. Bertels, 109 Pa. 550, 553-4 (1885), “When unseated land subject to taxation is sold, the title of the real owner passes to the purchaser, in whatever name it be
This brings us, then, to a consideration of the primarily factual question whether the mineral estate here involved was properly to be considered unseated, notwithstanding the assessor’s classification as seated. We find that it was.
As recited above, the mineral estate in question was severed from the surface estate in 1899 by the deed to Johnston, and it thereupon became subject to separate taxation. Hutchinson v. Kline, 199 Pa. 564, 569, 49 Atl. 312 (1901). No improvements were made to the mineral tract, however, until 1957, when appellee gas company drilled its gas well. It therefore remained unseated land throughout this period, and should have been assessed for tax purposes as such. As the Court put it in Stoetzel v. Jackson, 105 Pa. 562, 567 (1884), “[W]hether a tract of land is seated or unseated depends altogether upon what has been, or is being done upon it; upon the appearance which it may present to the eye of the assessor. . . . [T]he assessor has nothing to do with the misapprehensions or mistakes of the occupant; it is Ms business to return the land as seated if he finds upon it such permanent improvemenst as indicate a personal
Before the assessor can make his return relative to unseated land, however, there must be a preceding affirmative act by the owner. By the Act of March 28, 1806, P. L. 644, 4 Sm. L. 346 (supplied by the Act of May 22, 1933, P. L. 853, art. IV, §409, 72 P.S. §5020-409), landowners .must submit to the County Commissioners a description of their unseated lands. This apparently was not done by the Title Company, and the assessment was erroneously listed under the seated classification, and sold as such.
Prior to the Act of June 3, 1885, P. L. 71, 72 P.S. §5933, the sale of land which mistakenly appeared on the wrong list was invalid. Scott v. Bell, 344 Pa. 243, 25 A. 2d 308 (3942). That validating statute, however, provided that “All sales of seated or unseated lands within this commonwealth which shall hereafter be made for arrearages of taxes due thereon, shall be held, deemed and taken to be valid and effective irrespective of the fact whether such lands were seated or unseated at the time of the assessment of such taxes.” The law today remains the same, conditioned solely by the requirement that the sale follow the assessment. Blair v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 555, 562, 33 A. 2d 490 (1943). See also Scott v. Bell, supra.
Our conclusion therefore is twofold: because the laud in question possesed the characteristics of unseated
II.
Having failed to impeach the validity of the 1916 tax sale, appellant nevertheless presses an alternative argument, i.e., that the tax sale in 1912 of 306 acres of minerals in Warrant 1990, assessed in 1910 and 1911 to Charles Blanchard on the unseated list, was effective to convey the Johnston tract to appellant’s predecessor in title. If this position is correct, the 1916 sale was, of course, a nullity. Rockwell v. Warren County, 228 Pa. 430, 77 Atl. 665 (1910).
The validity of the assessment in the name of Blanchard and the ability to transfer the gas rights by the Treasurer’s deed of 1912 may be upheld for the same reasons, discussed above, which sanction the 1916 sale. The description of 306 acres of minerals, however, was inadequate to support a conveyance of the Johnston tract and must fail.
Judge Cherry found, and appellant does not contest, that no single mineral tract of 306 acres existed in Warrant 1990. In fact, Blanchard or his estate owned only 229 mineral acres in that warrant. Appellant argues that this is immaterial, because included in the 229 acres was the Johnston tract of 153 acres; the figure of 306 acres, though inaccurate because too high, reflected a desire to assess and sell all of Blanchard’s minerals in Warrant 1990. He properly cites the rule that a misstatement of the number of acres in a parcel
The difficulty here, however, is not the misstated acreage but the fact that the tracts comprising the Blanchard acreage
Judgment affirmed.
The correct corporate name of the Gas Company, resulting from a merger and change of name which have occurred since the inception of the litigation, is now Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation, a West Virginia corporation qualified to do business in Pennsylvania.
To date this case has been in our court system for over 12 years. Part of the time was consumed by a jurisdictional dispute ultimately decided by this Court in 1961, see Bannard v. New York State Natural Gas Corporation, 404 Pa. 269, 172 A. 2d 306.
These tracts are commonly referred to as the John Dressier, Levi Dressier, Salome Dale and George Bowersox tracts.
Following the metes and bounds description, the deed to Johnston continued with the following recital: “. . . containing about one hundred and fifty-three acres, more or less, being known as the Blanchard farm, and being a portion of sub-division Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the Boss Survey of 1860, and a part of warrant 1990.”
Some confusion appears in the record as to whether the name of the vendee was David Johnston or David Johnson. The 1899 deed gives it as “Johnston”, but at least two later conveyances of the same tract refer to the vendor as “Johnson”. Since no problem of identification is involved by reason of the variant spellings, we will refer to the vendee throughout as “Johnston”.
This was accomplished by a deed dated December 10, 1904, item 6 of which covered the Johnston tract, referred to therein as “The Old Blanchard farm, now David Johnson”, and giving the acreage as “one hundred and fifty-three Acres, more or less.”
The conveyances made by the 1904 deed, although not so indicated in the deed, were in trust for the heirs of Charles Blanchard. As appears from another deed of record in 1957, the Title Company executed a declaration of trust subsequent to receiving the deed of December 10, 1904, which declaration in turn referred to a trust agreement between the Title Company and the heirs entered into in 1903. The equitable interest of the Blanchard heirs pursuant to these instruments is not in dispute.
To comply fully with the 3904 court order, Neely also conveyed to the Title Company without reservation or exception what later became known as the C. 6. Schwen, C. G. Bailey (two), and J. N. Booze tracts consisting- of approximately 88, 84, 19 and 44 acres, respectively.
In Pennsylvania, the tax assessor prepares both a seated and an unseated list. An assessment should be returned on the seated list if it has been permanently improved whereas an unimproved tract is generally considered unseated. This distinction and the consequences of an improper classification are explored later in the text.
The deed description was of “a certain piece of Real Estate consisting of 153 acres mineral right situate in the Township of Union, purporting to be owned by and assessed in the name of Chas, Blanchard, Est.”
The parties agreed that only one appeal would be taken by one plaintiff (one of the Blanchard heirs) and that all plaintiffs would be bound by the result. Accordingly, as in the briefs of the parties, plaintiffs are referred to in the plural, but appellant in the singular.
Appellant contends that whatever was covered by the 306-acre mineral assessment was sold at the 1912 Commissioners’ sale to Stine and Woolridge; that in 1932 this land was conveyed to the Commissioners by a Treasurer’s deed, and in 1946 was conveyed by Commissioner’s deed to John E. DuBois; and that further intrafamily conveyances preceded a 1947 deed to the Green Glen Corporation which in 1957 executed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the Blanchard heirs.
Our use throughout this opinion of the words “validity” and “invalidity” and related terms is intended to include two closely related concepts. On the one hand, they refer to compliance with
Appellees have challenged this chain on the grounds that the execution and delivery of a valid Treasurer’s deed are essential to a valid tax sale, and that because appellant was unable to produce the 1932 deed, his title was defective. We do not reach consideration of this argument.
The Treasurer’s deed of 1912 purported to convey merely “a certain tract of unseated land, containing three hundred six 306 acres . . . surveyed to Blanchard Charles Wt. No. 1990”.
Appellant reconstructs, and we believe accurately, that the 229 acres of minerals assessed to the Blanchard Estate included the Johnston tract, the Amos Kline tract, and that part of the Kline-Wing tract which is situated in Warrant 1990.
