The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-05-26
appellee.
G. S. DoDDs,

PHILLIP MARX.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Copiah
county. T. J. Wharton, Judge.
George S. Dodds brought this action
of eiectment against Phillip Marx to
recover possession of the following land,
to-wit: "Lot 2, and thirteen feet north
side of lot 8, square 8, Haley fiat, in the
town of Hazelhurst." 1t appears that
the land in controversy was sold for the
delinquent taxes of the year 1888, and
purchased by the plaintiff from the
State The assessment rolls for 1888
showed the two following entries, to-wit:
''Los 2, and IS feet off north side lot 3,
square 3, Haley fiat, in Hazelhurst, sec.
3, I 10, X s e. assessed to A. Cohn at
$780," and "Lot 2 and part of lots ]
and 8, Haley fat, in Hazelhurst, sec. 3,
T 10, r e, assessed to |. n. Ellis at
$780," under the first of which it was
sold to the State. The defendant showed
that this land in controversy had be
longed to A. Cohn; that sometime in
1888 it had been transferred to |. n.
Ellis, and again sold back to Cohn,
who sold and decided it to the defendant.
1t was further shown that defendant in
1888 paid $210 taxes on the land
described in the second entry above and
assessed to l. n. Ellis; that lots and 8,
square l, and lots 2 and 3 square 3,
Haley fiat, were assessed to and taxes
paid on by other parties than Cohn and
Ellis, there being only three squares in
said fat; that Cokn, Ellis nor Marx
owned any other property in Haley fiat
than that described in the assessments
above; and that Marx did not know
anything of double assessment or mis-
take in the assessment of the land now
in dispute. The court below decided
for the defendant. The plaintiff ap.
pealed.
CAMPBELL, j., delivered the opinion of
the court.
Held-That the land owner must be
protected by payment of taxes under an
assessment sufficient to uphold sale of
the land for taxes if payment was not
made. If there are two assessments of
his land, each sufficient, if it were the
only one to support sale, and he pays
under either, a sale under the other is
unlawful. Only one assessment can be
lawfully made. The owner knows this,
anu hhQihS ObC presume tlidb IL IL
the only one, and act accordingly. He
is not bound to inquire if there is
another The validity of a sale for
taxes is determinable by the sufficiency
of the assessment to fix the charge, the
delinquency, and the sale to meet the
charge imposed.
The description in the assessment I'M
der which payment was made was suffi-
Gent, as it could be applied by the aid
of parol evidence to lot 2, and 13 feet of
of lot 3. square 3, in the Haley fiat, and
it is clearly shown that it was intended
for these parcels. Had there been no
other assessment a sale under this would
491, Code of 1880, which relate to the
description of lands ON assessment and
the admission of parol evidence in rela-
clue which when followed by the aid of
parol testimony conducts certainly to
the land intended. 1t is admissible only
to apply the description on the roll,
which must give the start and suggest
the course, which icing followed will
point out the land intended to be as
sessed. p TT of a designated division
being assessed to him who owns part
of it, the law applies the description to
the fact of ownership and makes that
definite and certain which but for sec.
49l would be void for uncertainty.
Payment of taxes on the wrong land
by mistake does not affect sale of that
land on which taxes are due and unpaid,
although inteaded to be paid on. But
the case under consideration is one of
double assessment of the seme land, |
both good, with payment by the owner
of taxes due under one assessment, and
no mistake as to what land was paid on
.ifrmed.
l.. B. Harris and Calhoon & Green,
for the appellant.
Miller & Cohn, for the appellee.