STEWART v. MARTIN

STEWART v. MARTIN
1944 OK 132
146 P.2d 836
193 Okla. 686
Case Number: 30991
Decided: 03/07/1944
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STEWART
v.
MARTIN et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. TAXATION--Sufficiency of description of real estate in published resale notice.
Under a statute directing the county treasurer to publish a resale notice containing the "description of the real estate to be sold," the description will be held sufficient if it is such as will enable the owner and prospective purchasers to identify and locate the land to be sold with substantial certainty, and if it is not calculated to mislead.
2. SAME--Sufficiency of description of land as "NW NE 34-13-10."
ln a published notice of tax resale describing land as "NW NE 34-13-10," it is a matter of common knowledge that reference is thereby made by such abbreviations and numerals to land located by the United States Government Survey in the state, and that the abbreviation "NW NE" refers to and means "The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter," and that the first numeral "34" refers to and means "Section Thirty-four," and that the second numeral "13" refers to and means "Township Thirteen," and that the concluding numeral "10" refers to and means "Range Ten."
3. SAME--Judgment of court holding resale tax deed and notice of resale sufficient included finding that land description in notice was sufficient--Description identifying tract in certain county.
When the published land description "NW NE 34-13-10" occurred in the notice given by the county treasurer of Okfuskee county of the resale of land in that county for delinquent ad valorem taxes, and in a suit testing the resale tax deed the trial court held the deed and notice of tax resale to be sufficient, that included a finding that such land description in the notice was a sufficient description and was not so misleading or indefinite as to affect the validity of the notice and the sale. Such finding will not be disturbed on appeal where there is no showing that same is contrary to the weight of the evidence on the point. Notice is taken that it is a matter of common knowledge that Okfuskee county is located at such distance north and east of the initial point of survey or the central division point for township and range as to make it apparent that such description refers to and describes the appropriate 40 acres of land in section 34, township 13 north and range 10 east of the Indian Base and Meridian in Okfuskee county.
4. APPEAL AND ERROR--Sufficiency of evidence in equity cases--Effect of general finding and judgment for defendant.
In a cause of equitable cognizance a general finding and judgment for defendant is in effect a finding against plaintiff on every controversial question of fact and upon any ground relied upon for relief, and on appeal such finding will be affirmed as to each such fact issue where the same is supported by the evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence.

Appeal from District Court, Okfuskee County; Arthur Cochran, Judge.

Action by Edna Stewart, now Magee, against A. J. Martin and J. N. Maloy to cancel resale tax deed. From the judgment for defendants the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Stephenson & Stephenson, of Okemah, for plaintiff in error.
James C. Wright and Glenn R. Watson, both of Okemah, for defendants in error.

WELCH, J.

¶1 This action was brought by the plaintiff to cancel resale tax deed executed to defendant J. N. Maloy covering 80 acres in Okfuskee county. The defendants claim valid title under said resale tax deed and sought judgment quieting title against plaintiff.

¶2 On appeal plaintiff contends that the trial court judgment for defendants was contrary to law and erroneous.

¶3 Plaintiff asserts that the resale tax deed was invalid for lack of sufficient description of the land in the notice of tax resale.

¶4 The land involved is the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 34, township 13 north, range 10 east, and the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 34, township 13 north, range 10 east. The two tracts separately described were separately sold. The first tract was described in the notice of resale as "NW NE 34-13-10." The second tract was described as the "SW NE 34-13-10." The question presented by this contention is whether the published descriptions were sufficient.

¶5 The general purpose of describing real estate to be sold is discussed in former decisions. See Chamberlain v. Davis, 191 Okla. 457, 130 P.2d 848.

¶6 We take it as a matter of common knowledge throughout the state that in the published descriptions above set out the first figure '134" represented the section number, the second figure "13" represented the township number, and the third figure "10" represented the range number in keeping with the survey existing throughout the state. It is a matter of definite knowledge that Okfuskee county is so far north and east of the initial point of survey or township and range division point that the township figure "13" could only refer to township 13 North, and the range figure "10" could only refer to range 10 East. We therefore conclude that the above descriptions published in the notice of tax resale did sufficiently refer to and describe the first above-described real estate here involved, and that such notice as published could not have referred to or described any other real estate, and could not have been misleading to any reader or to the plaintiff. On that point, therefore, there is no invalidity in the resale or the resale deed here under attack. Our conclusion in this regard is supported by our former decisions in Chamberlain v. Davis, supra, and Johnson v. Williams, 192 Okla. 163, 134 P.2d 584. In each of these cases the notice contained a general explanatory note as to the use of the numerals representing section, township, and range, but we think that is not of controlling importance and that the same result should be reached here as to sufficiency of the notice, since the survey and customary use of such numerals to denote section, township, and range has existed in the state for so many years.

¶7 As additional grounds of error the plaintiff asserts that she had paid the taxes for one of the years for which the land was sold at resale. Plaintiff asserts as another ground of error that the first tract of real estate above described was sold at the resale for a sum less than the minimum amount required and authorized by law.

¶8 On both these points the trial court found against the plaintiff on the facts. That is, the trial court found that the land was not sold for any year in which or for which the taxes were paid, and the trial court found that the tract involved was sold at the resale for the full amount of taxes, penalty, and interest, and not for a sum less than that total, as plaintiff contends.

¶9 We deem it unnecessary to deal at length with the fact details involved, since the finding of the trial court in favor of defendants on both points is fully supported by the evidence and not in any sense contrary to or against the weight of the evidence.

¶10 Finding no error in the findings or the judgment of the trial court, the judgment there is affirmed.

¶11 GIBSON, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.