The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-28


and believes it is illegal and void and will pass
no title. but will cast cloud upon her; and
she thcrCupon prays for injunction to re-
strain the sale from taking place.
NOWHERE SUGGESTED.
Why it will pass no title, and how it will
cloud that of the plaintiff, or for what specific
reason growing out of the facts we should
restrain the sale is nowhere suggested Except
for the oral argument therefore we should have
no idea what we are called upon to decide, and
we might well decline upon this ground alone
to interfere. But the questions raised are not
difficult of disposition and we will overlook the
deficiencies Of the bill and pass upon them.
1t is conceded that this lot was at one time
| owned by Andrew Merrick the party in whose
name it stands assessed, he having pur-
| chased it of Mrs Fisher, the plaintiffs grantor,
by contract which was not put on record, and
was subsequently surrendered. II that be so
the assessment is valid and the taxes if other
wise authorized be enforced against the
property.
The rule is that an assessment in the name
of any person who has been associated with
the property as owner or occupant is sufficient;
StrauCh VS.. Shoemaker, 1 W. & S. 1866; Phila-
dclpha vs.. Miller, 80 Pa. iiO; Glass VS.. Gilbert,
5s Pa 300; so that if Merrick held the lot at the
time the taxes were levied. or if before that
his name had become linked with the title by
reason OF ms purchase, the city could assess
the lot in his name and was not bound to look
further.
This part Of the bill seems to be a mere
makc-wcight however, the substantial purpose
Of it as disclosed by the argument being to
assal the constitutonality of the act Of May
23d 1889, far relates to the assessment,
lien and collection OF taxes in cities of the
| third class The act it is said makes such taxes
a special lien of absolute priority and indefinite
! lowing a sale for their non'payment differing
! from those Of any other judicial SALE thus
| Offending against the provisions of the consti,
| tuition which prohibit the passing Of any local
or special law authorizing the creation, exten.
| sion or impairng of liens, regulating the prac.
| tiCe jurisdiction of any judicial proceeding
| before the courts or prescribing the effect Of
| judicial sales Of real estate. The questions which
! are thus presented were fully considered in
| Smith vs.. Meadow Brook Brewing Co., 8 Lacka.
| Jur 145, and conclusion arrived at, sustaining
! the constitutionality Of the statute in all these
! particulars. We no occasion for recednG
from that position repeating at length the
| reasons by which it was reached
MUNICIPAL SUBJECT.
| Taxes are a municipal subject, and may be
| dealt with specially in the different classes of
| cities just they may be in boroughs or
! townships The difference in these several mu-
|
mcnt in each to meet different needs and con.
| ditons. Nor-adopting the line of argument
| pursued in Scranton VS.. Whytc, 14s Pa. 4l0-is
! the lien of taxes in cities Of the third class
new creation; it is merely an extension or
! adaptation Of one which already prevails in
| cities Of the first and second classes, the act
| thus not producing a diversity but bringing
| the three classes into substantial uniformity
| The certifcation of delinquent taxes to the
! city treasurer and the sale by him OF the land
| against which they are assessed and remain un.
! paid is merely method of enforcing the lien
entirely in conformity not only with that which
| is pursued in other cities but also with that
| which prevails to taxes in general. These
| considerations fully sustain the lien of the city
| taxes in controversy, and the prospective
sale by the city treasurer which we are asked
to enioin.
With their priority and the indefinite duration
| of their lien we have at present nothing to do
| How far either Of these characteristics can be
sustained is question which is not involved
and we do not pass upon it, Neither do we
as to the effect attempted to be given by the
statute to a sale for such taxes. We leave all
these problems where they are left by City vs..
| Whyte, 1is Pa. 4l0; Philadelphia vs.. Kates,
, $50 Pa. 80; and Safe Dep. Co. Vs. Frick, 1872
Pa 281, to be met and disposed Of when they
are squarely raised.
The treasurer is therefore clearly authorized
to sell the property for the city taxes which
were assessed to and due from the plaintiffs
predecessor But as to the school taxes, on the
strength of what is supposed to have been de.
cded in Smith VS.. Meadow Brook Brewing Co.,
3 Lacka. Jur l4l it was conceded by counsel at
the argument that he is not That decision,
however, it is to be noted, was based on the
circumstance that it nowhere appeared in tho
case that the act of May 3d. 1889 p. L. 274,
providing for the lien and collection Of school
in oil Of thp ri f1o
single school district, had been adopted by the
school district Of Scranton as requred; and
that under the provisions Of the general munich
pal corporation act Of 1874 no lien is given
to school taxes after the first Of January fol
lowing the year in which they have been levied
unless they are duly registered, no such regis
try being proved
REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL.
These were regarded as essential to the claim
there made, and in the absence of proof o
them it was rejected. There is nothing, how
ever, in the present bill to suggest that the
same conditions exist here and il it had moi
been conced q by counsel that the treasurer
had no right to sell for the school taxes il
dispute we should have been inclined to require
something more Of the plaintiff in that dree
tion than she has set out. She is asking fo
! a high order Of relief and must afiirmatiyell
allege and prove all that is necessary to es
'"'loH h'l liSHl " IT, buI III we" OF ln
concession we are compelled to assume tina
the plaintiff II called upon could bring heTsei
within the provisions of the law as laid dow
in the decision referred to, and we will there
fore treat the though she had done so.
c Aud now, July 27, 1900, a preliminary in
junction restraining the defendant from makin
sale of the plaintiffs property for the sohoo
2 taxes set forth in the bill is allowed the sam
t to continue until the further order Of the court
? | but an injunction to restrain the defendan
from making sale Of the said property for cit
txaes is refused.
The case of Dean against Brow
hinges on the lunacy of the defendant
The plaintiff bought from a man nam
ed Trip, a half interest in a 4prop
" erty in which Tripp and the defend
. ant Brown were half owners. TIL
transfer was made early in 1897 an
| In lnInhnr of thn Dan