The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-03-14
Supreme Court also Decides
Important Tax Sale
Controversy.

NClu uUueT leFy Wy flTluG. OI al eS-
ecution, at the instance of the cred
tor. after service OF the statutory
notice from the sureties to make the
debt out Of the property of the
principal, says the supreme court of
appeals, wholly discharges the sur
otieg, even though the debt. as to
the principal. has not been paid, nor
the execution legally satisfied.
circuit court Of Harrison county in
the case OF Williams. ct al. vs..
Brown. ct ais. The opinion of the
court was written by Judge Poffen-
barger.
Under the above circumstances,
the surety may. in equity, compel
execution of release of the lien of
the Judgment as to their real estate
rs constituting cloud on the title,
but a bill for such purpose by two
sureties, owning separate tracts OF
land, on the titles to which such
lien is common cloud, is not null
tifarious. and the constitution of
summary statutory proceeding for
the release of such lien by one OF
such sureties does not preclude his
Joinder with co-surety in suit to
obtain the same relief.
Probably the most important
case decided by the suprem court
on Tuesday was that in which the
decree OF the circuit court of Tucker
county was affirmed, by an opinion
written by Judge eRobinson, in
Male vs.. Moore. The decision
holds that the misspelling of a
name in the assessment list, OF
which the owner of property has no
knowledge, will not lose to such
owner the property assessed under
such misspelled name.
ITO support tax sale and deed
there must be a valid assessment
one that will impart full notice to
the owner or taxpayer and make
the proceedings due process of law"
says the court in the syllabus of the
case, and ian assessment Of land I'M
der name so erroneous in depart
ure from the correct name of the
person chargable with the taxes as
to be liable to mislead one whose
duty it is to pay or whose right It
is to redeem, is invalid as basis
of tax sale and deed where the tax
payer or person entitled to redeem
has no notice of the error .
The decree sets aside and annuls
a tax sale and deed in relation to
the plaintiffs house and lot. The
defendant, the purchaser at the tax
sale and grantee in the deed, ap-
pealed to the supreme court of ap-
peals.
Hornbrook was a former owner
of the property. The defendant
claimed it was validly sold under an
assessment made in the name of this
former owner. but the assessment
relied on was in the name of Horn
brook This erroneous assessment
OF the property plainly misled the
sheriff and his deputies.
The proceedings as a whole show
that these officers did not consider
the assessment as one against per-
son by the name OF Hornbrook,"
says the opinion of the higher
court in affirming the decree below.
Since the assessment misled them,
must we not reasonably assume that
it was liable to mislead the subse-
quent owner OF the property in seek
ing to pay the taxes or to redeem
from the delinquency and the sale?
The proceedings throughout are err
roneous and misleading. Though
the property was enormously as
sesed and returned as. delinquent in
the name of Hornbrook, it was even
more enormously advertised in the
name of Hornbrook. The sale and
deed were made in the name OF
hornbrook See how many inter
pretations of the name of the as
sessment roll were given by the Of
Ulcers in acting on 1T! Is it at all
strange that the plaintiff did not
observe it 10 be her property?
of course errors in the delin-
Quent list and subsequent proceed
inga are cured after the deed is
made" continues the opinion, but
the error in the assessment is COW
cred by no such curative statute.
There must be valid assessment;
otherwise proceedings are invalid
There must be notice to the owner
or taxpayer by an assessment that
gives notice, A sale and depriva-
ton of property cannot stand with
out due process of law by such
notice. The assessment must be
one that will call IN the nwner or