East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1864-04-27

\ with the assurance that he has in tn
responsibility of the contractor, in tn
security the Council has exacted from
him, or in the prudent disbursement
Of the money as the work actual,
advances. secs. 48 and 40 Id. 7
which contain express evidence tina
the Observation-Disclosures the assessmen
70 be made before the completion o
the work.
| .. 1t is also objected that the as
sessment was mad6 to &C. L. Smith
Bro" and not complainants. Tha
their land is charged with an assess
ment not made against them either a
owners or occupants.
| Unless the assessment has been 81
made as to be valid against the com
plainants and TO authorize a seizure o
their personal property, it cannot BIO
come lien upon their land.
They are seyerally entitled to thu
notice required to be given by section
AZ, and unless they are assessed BY
name they would not be notified. The
assessment was made against &c. l.
Smith q Bro" and of course the mo-
tice corresponded with it. = - .'-A
The answer states, on information
and belief, that compliments have
adopted the name of Charles l.. Smith
& Bro, as the management of said
property-that under that name they
offered to sell it to the city in April
and May, 1868, and in that namo sign.
ed q petition for the improvement in
quostioI. IL 10 claimed <hat thaso cir
cumstances should stop the complain.
ants from asserting that they own the
land by any other name.
The statement on Information and be-
lief, that compliments have adopted
the name Of Charles l.. Smith g. Bro.
in the management of this property,
can not avail the defendants as suf-
ficient showing to conclude the COM
plainants. The other acts stated can
not have that effect, for an agent might
represent the land in his own name
for the purpose Of offering it for sale,
and for procuring an Improvement of
the streets.
As Catharine III. Jones has not been
personally assessed by name, nor no.
titled that she or any person was as
sessed on account Of the land, the as
sessment as to her interest in the land
is void.
2 Mich. e. 5S6, $50, Barb. 1913. 3
Our Supreme Court have directed
that all the requirements of the statute
ch,ch are intended for the security of the
c't'zea. for ensnring equality Of taration,
and to enable every one to know with
reasonable certainty for what property
he is taxed, and for what all who are
liable with him are taxed, arc condi-
tons precedent, and If they are not
observed, he is not legally taxed
2 Mich. 400. 81 Pick. Ga.
Another rule is applicable and equal
ly fatal to the assessment on the land
of Mrs, Jones. Those duties of Off
GERS which require acts that are /" of
the essence of the thing to be done"
the essence of the proceeding in
question, can not be omitted without
invalidating that proceeding. Here is
such an omission, the foundation Of
the whole proceeding against goods as
well as land, is q valid assessment
roll, in which is required to be "enter-
cd the names of the persons assessed.
Sec. 40.
The language ofour Supreme Court
in Lefevre, rs the Mayor &c. of De-
troit. Mich, 5ss, cannot be misun-
derstood "The owner or occupant
must be named in the assessment roll,
because tho assessment is made upon
him; and if not paid, a warrant may
be issued for tho collection of the
amount, by distress and sale of his
goods and chattles. The land assess
ed must be described, because, if the
amount cannot otherwise bo collected,
the lot may be sod, or leased for a |
terms of years to pay the assessment;
under either case the proceeding must
be supported by the assessment. In
this case, neither is the owner named
nor the lots in question described
For these reasons the assess
ment was void"
If the bill had been fled by Cath
irine III. Jones alone, in respect to her
interest," il would be maintainablc as a
bill to remove cloud from her title.
In that respect the case would not diff.
er from Woodbridge rs. Detroit.
The bill is maintainable now.
whether Charles l.. Smith is entitled
o the same relief or not, and the in
unction, so far as is necessary, for her
must be continued.
1t is in the discretion of the Court
o give relief to one or two complain
nts, though the other cannot partici-
ate in that relief where there is no
bjection or none until the hearing.
n tho ground Of tho ,misjoinder.G
'torys Eq. pld. IS. 237, 544. ~
D Paige, 510-Bat. Sec. 2, and of
II. n. 1S6, $50,
Cowleyrs. Cooley, o Sim. 200.
III the assessment against G. l..
mith & Bro. is valid assessment
gainst Charles l.. Smith, rejecting
Brother rs too unccrtainto designate
ny person; or lift can bemade valid
y abating the excess and retaining
no remainder as lien on his undivid
4 interest in the land, he has no
luity. Tl
An amendment to the name of G.
|. Smith for benefits to tho land of
harles L. Smith is valid as against
i'm. In this case he is assessed as
10 owner of the entirety but owned
My . half interest, there is therefore !,
excses of taxation on his interett.
The whole sum assessed to him
'uld not have been collected, only
alf was for benefits received by him
respect to his ownership of the ,
nd. The roll in the hands of the