The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-22
Alspaugh Against Reynolds.


Following is the opinion of Judge
Kelly, disCharging the rule for "A new
trial in the much discussed and com
plicated case of William Alspaugh
against Nancy Reynolds:
This is an action of cjectment
brought to recover a lot of land in the
Fourth ward Of the city of Scranton,
which may bc briefly described as lot
No. IL in block 13, of the Swetland
estate. From the briefs of title filed
by the parties and the evidence, II
appears that George Alspaugh, the
father of the plaintiff, obtained the
equitable title to the lot in question
from the executors of William SWEET
land by articles of agreement dated
oct. 8, 1870. Afterwards a judgment
was recovered against him by Howell
& Warnke to No 50, September Term,
1873, in the Mayors court of Scranton,
upon which an execution was issued
and his interest sold to +. L. Riggs
at MarshallS sale on May 22. 1876. on
July 80 of the same year r.. l.. Riggs
obtained a deed from the executors of
the SWetland estate conveying to him
this lot subject to the contract already
mentioned and he thus became the
absolute owner of the land in fee. ON
Nov. >, 1877, +. l.. Riggs conveyed by
deed to Elias Palmer. and the title
passed from Elias Palmer by a deed,
in the operation of the inteState laws,
to the defendant
The paintim claims title under
sheriff's sale of the lot. which took
place on June II, 1881 by virtue of
lev. ia. issued on a judgment entered
on sci. ia. and alias sci. ia. sur tax
lien entered against +. l.. Riggs for
city and school taxes assessed against
the property for the years 1877. 1873
and 1879 At this sheriff's sale the
property was purchased by one J. w.
Maloney, and the title which he ac-
quired by virtue of il, by divers con-
VeyanceS, etc, became vested in the
plaintiff, who now seeks to recover
upon the strength of it, Plaintiff and
defendant claim under a common
source Of title and the case must turn
upon the effect to be given to the
sheriff's sale to Maloney in 1881.
For the purpose of determining this
question we will assume that the taxes
We're assessed against the lot for the
years 1871, 1878 and 1879, in the name
of f, l.. Riggs; that none of them
were ever paid; that "A municipal lien
was duly entered; that a SCire faCiaS
was regularly issued. returned served
by posting copy of the writ upon
the premises. and nihil as to f.. l..
Riggs; an alias sci. ia, issued. re-
turned served in the same manner;
judgment against Il. L. Riggs for want
of appearance, etc; that writ of
ley. ia. was duly issued and the
property was regularly sold at sher-
ifs sale to j. w. Maloney. 10 whom
a deed regularly acknowledged in open
court was delivered. Prima facie this
Sheriff's sale would convey a good
title, and the plaintiff would be enti-
tied to recover.
The defendant, however alleges that
Notwithstanding all this, the sheriff 6
sale was void and of no effect be-
cause the same lot was assessed to
George Alspaugh for city and school
taxes for the same years, and that the
taxes so assessed We're paid by her
previous to the filing of the tax lien,
and the proceedings had upon It. In
other words, that there was a double
assessment, one against f.. l.. Riggs
and one against George AlSpaugh. and
that having paid the taxes assessed
against the latter all the proceedings
for the collection of other taxes as
sessed We're illegal and void. Certain
evidence was admitted at the trial. at
the instance of the defendant, for the
purpose of showing that the same lot
was assessed To George AlSpaugh for
the same years, and the taxes paid,
and the question was submitted TO
the jury with instructions that if they
so found. the verdict should be for
the defendant.
After reviewing the proceedings at
the trial we are satisfied that no error
was committed in the admission of the
evidence. and that there was sufficient
to sustain the finding of the jury. Nor
have we been persuaded that our rul-
ing at the trial that the assessment
of the property to Alspaugh and the
payment Of the taxes so assessed
would vitiate the subsequent proceed
ingS for the collection of the taxes 10
Riggs was erroneous. A municipality
has the right to assess all lands with
in its boundaries for the payment OF
its taxes. but it has no right to col
| lect more than one tax for any one
year. Under the laws all taxation
| must he equal. and no municipality
| has the right to collect double taxes
from one lot of land while an adjoin-
| ing lot Is only subjected to the pay
ment of but "A single tax,
The design of the numerous acts of
assembly with reference to the Collec-
tiOn Of taxes is to enforce payment,
and when payment is made all that
the legislature intended has been ac-
! complished. Delaney VS.. Gait 30 Pa.
| 6S. The jury having found that the
| property in question in this case was
assessed to George Alspaugh for the
same years that il was assessed 10
| r. H. hlSES Nupon Wndt we regard as
competent and sufficient evidence, as
already states) IT would be contrary 10
common sense and good conscience 10
| hold that either the city or the school
| district could afterwards legally pro-
| ceed to collect other taxes for the Same
| years upon the same property.
Judge Pearson said in the case OF
| RanCk, ct al, VS., Coal CO., | Pears.
| 400, Another objection is also raised
| 10 this sale. The defendants say that
| they filed a description of their land
| in the commissioners office, as re-
| quired by the act of 1906; that the
| same was taxed regularly in their
warrantee name for each and all the
years when 1t was taxed TO Alexander
| Osborne a 90. that they
could not suppose that the land wac
| doubly taxed in the name of Shafer
| and of Osborne. II they had shown
that they had paid the tax in the
name of Shafer, that would have been
4 a nj i.