Harrison v. . Hahn

SMITH, C. J. (after stating the facts). Among the numerous objections taken to the plaintiffs’ claim under the .proceedings to enforce the payment of the tax by a sale of land, as the pi’operty of one who had no interest in it, it is necesssary, in the view we take of the ease, to advert to but one, the incurable indefiniteness of the description of the lots as found in the tax book, in the published notice of sale, and in the sale itself and the deed made to give it effect. The office of descriptive words, is to ascertain and identify an object, and parol proof is heard, not to add to or enlarge their scope, but to fit the description to the thing described. When they are too vague to admit of this, the instrument in which they are contained becomes inoperative and void. In respect to deeds, the subject is fully considered, and our own rulings reviewed, in Farmer v. Batts, 83 N. C., 387, and we do not propose a re-examination. Now it is manifest, that the attempted designation of the lots utterly fails in identifying them, and the very evidence offered and rejected, was to add to the description. *32 The deed of April 22, 1882, quite as definite, (if not more so,) as the preceding entry, describes the land as “ Parts of lots on corner of Pollock and Spring streets, and part Lafayette Nash or back lot, listed by E. I). Jones on the Tax book,” &c. If these streets intersected, there would be four lots, one at each corner, and which of the four is meant? If the lot is located, what parts are intended to be separated and cut off ? and what part of the other or back lot ? There are no means provided to ascertain the parts, unless you superadd to the words of description. The sale itself was of lots as described in the tax book, and the deed is in strict compliance with the announced terms of sale. ■ The second deed, made upon a description furnished by the plaintiff James C., and at his request, and entirely unwarranted by precedent facts, cannot help the infirmities incident to the proceeding. The result must be controlled by the facts, and only what was offered and sold can be conveyed by the collector. We have not adverted to the anomaly of selling one man’s land to pay the tax due by another, in face of a provision in the charter, §43, which requires the money to be raised, when it' can be, from the personal estate of the debtor, before proceeding against his land, nor to the many other irregularities apparent in the proceeding, as it is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, to sustain the ruling of the Court upon the point noticed. There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed. No error. Affirmed.