Per Curiam.
We are of the opinion that the assessment of the • tax sued for was void. It 'is in the words and figures following, to wit:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Per Curiam.
We are of the opinion that the assessment of the • tax sued for was void. It 'is in the words and figures following, to wit:
The statement of evidence shows that the city of Pawtucket was the owner of lands in Cumberland, not used for water works purposes, and lying in separate tracts or parcels. This being so the assessment was bad because not in conformity with the requirement .of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 42, § 4, that ££ separate tracts or parcels shall be separately described and valued as far as practicable.” In
Young
v.
Joslin,
13 R. I. 675, this requirement, being for the benefit of the taxpayer, was held to be so far mandatory that its observance was essential to the validity of the tax, unless there were circumstances which rendered its observance impracticable. No such circumstances appear in this case.
Again, the description of the lands is so vague and uncertain that it in no wise identifies the lands assessed. The owner could not know from it what lands were assessed, nor whether.the lands of other persons might not be included in the assessment. Such an assessment imposes no duty upon a taxpayer.
Hopkins
v. Young, 15 R. I. 48;
Young
v.
Jos
lin, 13 R. I. 675, 679;
City of Philadelphia
v.
Miller,
49 Pa. St. 440, 448, 449, 455, 456;
Curtis
v.
The Board of Supervisors of Brown County,
22 Wisc. 167, 170.
Parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of applying a description to the land, or to remove a latent ambiguity.
Judd
v.
Anderson,
51 Iowa, 345, 347;
Jenkins
v.
Sharpf,
21 Wisc. 472; 2 Desty on Taxation, 856. But it cannot be resorted to for the purpose of supplementing, and thereby making certain, a description which is so defective that it does not identify the land. As stated in
City of Philadelphia
v.
Miller,
49 Pa. St. 440, 449, "Assessment is, from its legal requirement and the necessity of preserving its evidence, a written entry, and must depend upon the records of the commissioners’ (assessors’) office, and not upon parol evi
dence.” And see also
McCall
v.
Lorimer,
4 Watts, 351, 355;
Lessee of Miner
v.
McLean,
4 McLean, 140;
Curtis
v.
The Board of Supervisors of Brown County,
22 Wisc. 167,
169
; Cooley on Taxation, 2d ed. 406.
Edwin Aldrich, Daniel JR. Ballou & Frank H. Jackson,
for plaintiff.
Thomas P. Barnefield,
for defendant.
Plaintiff’s petition for new trial denied and- dismissed.