Case Name: NOBLE v. WATROUS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-02-27
Citations: 84 Or. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: NOBLE v. WATROUS.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 418–429

Head Matter:
Argued January 31,
reversed February 27,
rehearing denied June 6, 1917.
NOBLE v. WATROUS.
(163 Pac. 310; 165 Pac. 349.)
Taxation — Tax Title — Burden of Proof.
1. Except as tbe statute relieves bim of tbe burden, a party asserting a tax title must show a compliance with the statute in eaeb step leading up to the execution of bis deed.
Taxation — Tax Title — Assessment.
2. Section 3127, B. & C. Comp., providing that a tax deed shall he prima facie evidence, shifts the burden of proof, but does not validate a tax title based on an insufficient assessment.
Taxation — Tax Title — Assessments—Description of Band.
3. Under Section 2770, Hill’s Ann. Laws 1892, requiring that the assessment-roll contain a description of each parcel of land to be taxed, a tax title based on two assessments respectively describing the land as “W.2 of N. E.4” and “Wof N. E.4” of a certain section, township and range was invalid.
Taxation — Tax Title — Suit—Costs—Taxation.
4. Where in an action to quiet title it appears that the former owner abandoned the land more than twenty years before suit, that plaintiff secured a deed from her for a nominal consideration immediately prior to suit, that defendant purchased a tax title believing it unquestioned and paid the full value of the land, and for nearly twenty years paid taxes on the property, improving it, and exercising some dominion over it, though insrufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations, and that the trial of the present suit was delayed nearly eight years, costs will be allowed to defendant in both courts on reversal of a decree for defendant and rendition of a decree for plaintiff.
Taxation — Tax Title — Suit—Conditional Decree — Reimbursement for Taxes Paid.
5. Where it further appears in such case that defendant has paid taxes on the property during pendency of suit, the decree for plaintiff should be conditioned on his paying into court the money necessary to reimburse defendant for such taxes, with lawful interest thereon.
ON PETITION EOR REHEARING.
Taxation — Assessment—Description of Property.
6. Section 2774, Hill’s Ann. Laws 1892, providing that it should be sufficient to describe lands in all proceedings relative to assessing them for taxes by initial letters, abbreviations and figures to designate the township, range, section or part of a section, did not authorize the use of the exponents 2 and 4 to designate half and quarter sections, though thereunder the initial letters “N. E.” would be accepted as the equivalent of northeast, “Sec.” as section, and the figures % as one fourth.
Appeal and Error — Supplemental Record — Filing After Decision.
7. Leave to file a supplemental reeord to correct an error in the transcript on file will not be granted, after the ease has been decided and a petition for rehearing has been filed, where it could not lead to any different determination of the appeal.
Taxation — Tax Deed — Presumptions and Burden of Proof.
8. Under Section 3127, B. & C. Comp., providing for the issuance of a deed to the purchaser at a tax sale, and that such deed shall be prima fade evidence of certain facts as to the assessment and sale, such presumptions of regularity attach only to a deed in favor of the purchaser, and do not attach in favor of a deed to an assignee of the certificate of sale.
[As to effect of recitals in tax deeds, see note in 31 Am. St. Rep. 233.]
Taxation — Delinquent Tax-roll — Description of Property.
9. That a delinquent tax-roll did not show whether the range in which the property lay was east or west was a fatal defect.
Taxation — Tax Sale — Time of Sale.
10. Under Section 2814, Hill’s Ann. Laws 1892, requiring the warrant for the collection of delinquent taxes to be issued within ten days after the first Monday in April, and to be returnable on the first Monday in July, Section 2815, under which the warrant, when issued, had the force and effect of an execution, and Section 278, under which the life of an execution, unless prolonged in some way, was sixty days, where a warrant was not issued until July 27th, and the sale did not take place until November 29th, the warrant was functus officio, and the sale thereunder was void.
From Washington: Henry L. Benson, Judge.
Suit by H. E. Noble, against J. Arthur Watrous and -Watrous, his wife, Sherman Bacon and -- Bacon, his wife, to quiet title. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Mc-Camant.
This is a suit brought to quiet the title to the west half of the northeast quarter of section 13, T. 3 N., R. 4 W., in Washington County. Both parties claim under Florence E. Watts, who was admittedly the owner of the property in 1895 and 1896. Plaintiff claims under a deed in his favor executed by Mrs. Watts and her husband December 14, 1905. The defendants claim under tax sales held for the purpose of enforcing the lien of the taxes levied for the years of 1895 and 1896. The property was purchased at these tax sales by the defendant Watrous, who conveyed to the defendant Bacon. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
Reversed. Rehearing Denied.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Wood, Montague & Hunt and Mr. John M. Wall, with an oral argument by Mr. Richard W. Montague.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. Edmund B. Tongue and Mr. Thomas H. Tongue, with an oral argument by Mr. Edmund B. Tongue.
For eases passing upon reimbursement of taxes paid by purchaser as condition of equitable relief against invalid tax title, see note in L. R. A. 19150, 492. Reportee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McCamant
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is settled law in this jurisdiction that tax titles are not favored. Except as the statute relieves him of the burden, the party asserting a tax title must show a compliance with the statute in each of the steps leading up to the execution of his deed: Rafferty v. Davis, 54 Or. 77 (102 Pac. 305); Ayers v. Lund, 49 Or. 303, 307 (89 Pac. 806, 124 Am. St. Rep. 1046). The defendant. Bacon, who 'is asserting the tax titles, relies on Section 3127, B. & C. Comp. This section of the Code, which was in force when the tax deed in favor of this defendant was executed, provides in part that a deed executed in conformity with its provisions
"shall be prima facie evidence in all the courts of this state in all controversies relating to the rights of the purchaser, or his heirs or assigns, to the land thereby conveyed, of the following facts: (1) That the real property conveyed was subject to tax for the year or years stated in the deed; (2) that the taxes were not paid at any time before the sale; (3) that the real property conveyed has not been redeemed from the sale at the date of the deed; (4) that the property had been listed and assessed; (5) that the taxes were levied according to law; (6) that the property was duly advertised for sale; (7) that the property was sold for taxes as stated in the deed: — and it shall be conclusive evidence of the following facts: (1) That the manner in which the listing, assessment, levy, notice, and sale were conducted was in all respects as the law directed; (2) that the grantee named in the deed was the purchaser; (3) that all the prerequisites of law were complied with by all the officers who had, or whose duty it was to have had, any part or action in any transaction relating to or affecting the title conveyed, or purporting to be conveyed, by the deed from the listing and valuation of the property up to the execution of the deed, both inclusive, and that all things whatsoever required by law to make a good and valid sale, and to vest the title in the purchaser were done, except in regard to the points named in this section wherein the deed shall be presumptive evidence only."
This legislation shifts the burden of proof, but does not operate otherwise to validate a tax title based on an insufficient assessment. In the absence of a valid assessment there can be no transfer of title through a tax sale. The assessment for the year 1895 describes the land as W.2 of N. E.4 Section 13 Township 3 N. Range 4 West. The assessment for 1896 uses the following description: W. ½ of N. E.4 Section 13 Township 3 N. Range 4 West. It has been repeatedly held that an exponent two is not effectual to designate a half-section and an exponent four will not designate a quarter-section: Power v. Bowdle, 3 N. D. 107 (54 N. W. 404, 44 Am. St. Rep. 511, 21 L. R. A. 328); Mate Finance Co. v. Mulberger, 16 N. D. 214 (112 N. W. 986, 125 Am. St. Rep. 650); Farmers' Panic v. Martin, 29 N. D. 269 (150 N. W. 572, L. R. A. 1915D, 432); Black on Tax Titles (2 ed.), § 114; 1 Cooley on Taxation, 748, note; 37 Cyc. 1059, note.
We have been cited to no authority to the contrary, nor have we been able to find any. This record contains no testimony to the effect that such exponents are customarily used to designate half and quarter sec tions. It was expressly required by tbe statute in force when this assessment was levied that the assessment-roll should contain a description of each parcel of land to be taxed: Section 2770, Hill's Ann. Laws. "We are therefore constrained to hold that these assessments are insufficient as the basis of the said defendant's title. "We may add that there are other grounds on which these tax titles are attacked and we are by no means clear that they could be upheld even if the assessments were valid.
It appears from the record that Florence E. Watts, the former owner of the property, abandoned it more than twenty years ago and that plaintiff secured a deed from her for a nominal consideration immediately prior to the bringing of this suit. On the other hand, the defendant Bacon purchased from the defendant Watrous in the belief that the title was unquestioned and paid full value for the land. For nearly twenty years the defendants have paid the taxes on the property. While the evidence fails to show such a possession of .the property by the defendant Bacon as would satisfy the statute of limitations or defeat plaintiff's right to maintain this suit, it does show the exercise of dominion over the property from time to time by the defendant Bacon and some improvement of the property by him without protest from anyone. This suit was brought March 20,1906; it was not tried until February 18, 1914. In view of the circumstances above recited, the defendant Bacon will recover costs in both courts.
In response to an order passed by the lower court plaintiff has paid into that court the moneys necessary to reimburse the defendants for taxes paid by them prior to the bringing of this suit. His relief should be conditioned on the further payment to the defendant Bacon of the amounts paid by the latter for taxes on the property during the pendency of this suit, with lawful interest thereon. Subject to this condition, plaintiff is entitled to a decree quieting his title against the defendants.
The decree of the lower court is reversed.
Reversed. Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chiee Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Bean concur.