121 P.2d 450 | Idaho | 1942
This is an action to quiet title to certain lode mining claims in Elmore county. Appellant is a resident of Hill City; respondent is a corporation organized *415 and existing under the laws of this state. The action was instituted July 31, 1940, by filing a complaint.
Appellant claims title to the property through purchase from Elmore county; and the county's title rested solely upon a tax deed issued May 13, 1940, by the treasurer for delinquent taxes for the year 1932. Respondent was the original owner and taxpayer. The property was assessed on the assessment roll of Elmore county as follows: "Name and address of owner or reputed owner" — "Blackstone Mining Co., Boise, Ida. c/o Hawley Hawley." In the column marked "Subdivision," the property is described as "Kentucky Lode, Ohio Lode, Illinois Lode, Iowa Lode, Oregon Lode." No other identification appears on the assessment roll. The delinquency entry and notice of pending issuance of tax deed added nothing to the assessment description. The tax deed contained the same description appearing on the assessment roll.
It was stipulated at the trial that the claims named on the assessment roll "are shown by the plat book in the Assessor's office of Elmore County to be in Sections 13, 14, and 15, in Township 2 South of Range 10 East of the Boise Meridian." The sections and township designation, however, are not referred to on the assessment roll; neither is any reference made to the plat book. The deed from Elmore county to the appellant simply described the property as a "parcel of land situated in the County of Elmore, State of Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Oregon Lodes."
The trial court found and held, that the description, on the assessment roll and in the deed conveying the property, was not sufficient compliance with the law to pass title; and that appellant showed no title or right of possession to the property and that he had no title to quiet. (Sec. 61-220, I. C. A.) A decree was accordingly entered in favor of the respondents. The court, however, awarded the plaintiff judgment for $45.00, the amount of money paid to the county which represented the taxes and penalties for the two years.
The decision of the case turns on the sufficiency of the *416 description of the property, as contained on the assessment roll and in the deed of conveyance to the county.
Appellant places great reliance on Old Republic MiningCompany v. Ferry Company,
"In a proceeding in rem, such as a tax foreclosure by a county, jurisdiction of the res must clearly appear. Propertysought to be foreclosed should be so described as to admit ofits identification by recourse to official records, or at least by some means which may be referred to as common or general knowledge, concerning which accurate information may easily be obtained." (Italics ours.)
Another case relied on by appellant is Territory v. CopperQueen Consolidated Mining Co.,
An examination of the opinion in the latter case discloses a somewhat different statute from ours, which prevailed at that time in the Territory of Arizona; and it is *417 not thought that the opinion in that case is applicable to the conditions prevailing in the case at bar. Reference to the fact, that the claims were patented, comprising so large atract, is sufficient to distinguish that case from the one at bar.
Here there is no reference or tie to any natural object or permanent monument, which is essential in posted notice and record of a mining location; (Sec.
It should be further remembered that the acquisition of a tax title by the county or state is a purely ex parte, unilateralproceeding in rem and requires more particularity of description than is required in a contract for sale or deed or other bilateral contract or agreement. Wilson v. Jarron,
This court has consistently held, through a series of opinions, that a valid tax title may not be based on an assessment and tax deed containing an insufficient description to enable one to examine the record and there to acquire sufficient data to enable him to locate the land taxed. (Booth v. Cooper,
Counsel for appellant has manifested diligence and great care in the presentation of authorities and reasoning in support of his client's title. We think, however, the rule sound and just as above announced.
Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.
Givens, C.J., and Budge and Holden, JJ., concur.
Morgan, J., concurs in the conclusion reached.