The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-06-20

b. i also enclose the Dill OF Clerh VI hPpeai
Court for copy of the decree.
hsSpsc''uSWi w.. D. PORTER.
In THE COURT OF APPEALS,
COLUMBIA, May, 1858. 49,
The State ex relatione Francis Goblet VS..
Peter @. Cherry; City Sheriff of Charleston.
The State OK rel. Charles ii. Slmonton w.
Peter o. Query, City Sheriff Of Charleston
Opinion. 9
n Il. wARDLAw, ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
The act of1788 contemplates the annual col
lection Of taxes, requires warrants Tor coliee-
ton to be directed to- constables, ana Dy l.s
twelfth section gives to taxes preference over
all "eecurities and membranes whatsoever.
The case of Harth ys. Gibbes decided that no
specific saien upon property, only genera N
debtedness of the person liable to pay the ta1,
had been created; and, by thea act OF l84S,
taxes were made to constitute speclhc leps
upon the property taxed, "for one year from
the time when the liability for the sald taxes
attaches upon the owner, undeT %niea l.;tb; eaGn
parcel Of such property may pe leYisa "lInln
the period aforesaid, and sold for satisfact on
of the taxes thereon, notwithstanding any
alienation OF the same by the owner aitor the
liability for the said taxes attached, the pro-
ceeds of sale being applicable to such taxes on
the property sold, ''pror to and IN preference
OF all Judgment, mortgages, pledges, deDts or
contained shall be construed to effect or impair
the ordinary general lien of executions for
taxes duly lodged in the Office Of any sheriff. :"
This provision, whatever may be its further ef-
feet. certainly serves to guard the rights OF the
State against transfers made between the first
day Of October. first day of January after the
tax act, by act of 1866, and the iodgment OF
rectly given to warrants for collection OF taxes
the binding efficacy Of o atiers fqcaGs lodged ID
the Sheriff's Office for enforcement OF Judg,
ment; but since 1893 they have been called
executions" and lodged in the Sherifs ohce,
and frequently the terms used by the Legisla-
ture, as in the acts Of 1899, 1903 and l8aS, SHOW
an understanding that such binding efficacy
existed Indeed, in the confused condhon on
the law about taxes, it has more than once
happened that q misLaten opinion. proceeding
perhaps from some public officer, has grown
up and prevailed, until it was corrected; by ap-
peals to the courts, as, for instance, IN respect
to q lien upon property in the hands OF pur-
chaser, corrected in the case OF Harth w.
Gibbes.
:. Reference has thus been made to the laws
concerning taxes imposed by tne Legis-
so often exceed or equal those Of the
State, and BY the city ordinances the regulations
concerning the collection Of city taxes have
been in general so assimilated to those which
relate to the State taxes, that II has been sup
posed that the State legislation on the suD]ect;
without special reference to the city, apphed
to the city taxes, and supplied deficiencies oa IN
the c ty ordinances. But the act OF IioS,
which ia called The charter OF the City OF
Charleston, and which -alono defines, the power
of the City Council with regard to taxes, aq;
thorizes necessary assessments, and leaves all
"details, as To collection and the like, to be reg,
ulated by ssby-laws, rules and ordinances" not
even, as in the case Of Moultrieville, referring
to the. laws -.for the!colection and pament OF
the general State tax" Accordingly the City
tenn for itself, which in 1874, seems to have
been amended and codified. In this there is
no general. preference given to city taxes. as
by the 18th section of the act OF l7SS was giy-I
en- to State taxes, nor any express provision
that an execution for taxes shall have any llen,.
although by the 10th section, which ls copied
from the 18Th section Of the act OF, l8a3, above
cited, the mere imposition OF q tax without any
execution, creates specific lien upon proper
ty for q wear, and general lien of tax execu-
lion duly lodged is implied to exist, as OF an
execution. What liz this general lien
OF an ordinary execution it is a lien upon the
of the defendant In execution, beg1n- 1
ming when the execution is lodged, and subject
10 all prior liens. The priority which, accord
ng to the case Of Butler va. Baily, the necessi-
lies OF government requIe, JUG Uaoo VI halo VI
# 1874, show must be sustained by Legislative
enactment, that is, in respect to city taxes BY
N ordinance Of Council. The ordinance OF
1874, as the act of 1843, contemplated collec-
ion OF taxes within The year; but although the
executions which authorize levy, sale and I'M
Drisonment may be executed after the year,
he special lien. aud priority, which the 10th
,ection of that ordinance gives, cannot be ex-
endad foyond fha limit which it prescribeS.
In the cases before us, under lions which
preceded the Liability for taxes, sales were
made after the expiration OF the year from the
ime when the liability for the last tax attach
ID, and it appears to the count that the prohi-
tito were properly ordered.
The motions are dismissed:
I;a BENZ. F. DUNKIN, G. j.
Concur. - THUs. W.-GLOvER, j.
=. BuLS.Y