The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1919-12-11
plaintiff in one case and defendant in
the other -

plaintiff in one case and defendant il
the other. -
To this question / have given hor,
than a usual amount of attention ant
study for the reason that in this stat
we have number of cases bearing
upon the sufficiency of tax titles, but
to harmonic them is a very difficult
task.
defendants is that the certificates OF
sale do not sufficiently describe the
! land and that the deeds based upon
! the said certificates contain descrip-
tions that are not warranted by the
descriptions in the certificates. In
their briefs counsel for plaintiff as
sert that the certificates of sale To-
cate the land as being in Canyon coun-
ty, but fail to give the township and
range. An examination of the certi-
ficates discloses that in this conten-
ton counsel are in error because in
not any of the descriptions is the
county mentioned. If the county in
which the land is situated had been
m entioned in the certificates of sale,
l think that under the authorities in
this state, and under the general rule,
the court would take judicial know
ledge of the township and range, but
this condition does not exist here, the
county not having been mentioned in
any Of the certificates. This princi-
pie is enunciated in the case of Wilson
VS.. Jarron, reported in % Idaho, and
cited by counsel on both sides, but in
the same case it is clearly held that if
the county is not given in the certi-
ficate of sale, that the officer making
the deed has no authority to supply
the same.
In the proceedings leading up to the
tax deed In controversy there appear
ed a large number of irregularities,
but l doubt very much whether any
of them would be fatal if the tax sale
certificates had contained the proper
description of the land The undoubt-
ed rule in this state is that the title
would not be vitiated for mere ire
gularities made by the officer in the
proceedings leading up to the deed 1t
is true that the tax sale certificates
ocate the land as being in the Emmett |
Irrigation District, but / know of no
rule by which the court will take judi |
cial knowledge of the boundaries of an |
Irrigation district for the reason that |
the boundaries are local, established |
FOR private purposes, and are not a |
part of any political subdivision of the |
state created by the legislature.
For the reasons stated above, among
others, am compelled to hold that
he tax deeds are not sufficient to
convey title to this land. This con-
:lusion is made imperative by the de-
.isions of our own supreme court as
understand them
After the land owner has sat by for
! long period of years, used the wal
er furnished him by the district and
natured crops, and neglected to pay
or the same, it does not appeal to my i
ense of fairness and equity to permit
i'm to defeat the title of the district
fter the period of redemption is past,
,ut the Supreme court having held
hat the description in these certifi-
ates is insufficient upon which to
ase deed, l feel bound by the rul
nunciated in those cases, even though
does not seem 20 me- that the
quities are with the land owner.
For the reasons above stated, find {
ngs and DEGREES may be prepared IN
hese two cases in accordance with
hese conclusions, the right of the
laintiff, John Little, to foreclose his
lortpage not having b2en brought in
uestion, except through the pleadings /
f the tax deeds above referred to. /,