Case Name: CHARLES S. BRYAN and MRS. ALICE H. BRYAN v. CRAVEN COUNTY and J. A. PATTERSON, Tax Collector, B. O. JONES, County Auditor, CITY OF NEW BERN, EDWARD CLARK, Tax Collector, and GEORGE C. JONES, City Auditor
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1933-06-14
Citations: 204 N.C. 728
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES S. BRYAN and MRS. ALICE H. BRYAN v. CRAVEN COUNTY and J. A. PATTERSON, Tax Collector, B. O. JONES, County Auditor, CITY OF NEW BERN, EDWARD CLARK, Tax Collector, and GEORGE C. JONES, City Auditor.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 728–734

Head Matter:
CHARLES S. BRYAN and MRS. ALICE H. BRYAN v. CRAVEN COUNTY and J. A. PATTERSON, Tax Collector, B. O. JONES, County Auditor, CITY OF NEW BERN, EDWARD CLARK, Tax Collector, and GEORGE C. JONES, City Auditor.
(Filed 14 June, 1933.)
1. Taxation D c — Owner held entitled to apportionment of taxes to lots comprising property listed as entity.
Where land comprising several city lots is listed for taxation as one lot, and thereafter the owners execute an option on a part of the land: Held, under the provisions of C. S., 7987, as amended by chapter 306, Public Laws of 1929 and by chapter 83, Public Laws of 1931, it is lawful for the taxing authorities to apportion the taxes upon application of the owners even though the application is made after the land has been sold for taxes but before foreclosure of the tax certificate, and a judgment ordering that the lot optioned be released from the tax lien upon the payment of the taxes apportioned against it together with the payment of the personal property tax assessed against the owners will be upheld, the statute applying to cases in which a subdivision of property has been made and the land assessed as an entity and it being immaterial whether the subdivision was made before or after the adoption of the amendment.
2. Statutes B a—
A statutory regulation affecting method or procedure may be regarded as merely directory unless the procedure relates to a positive and essential legislative requirement.
3. Taxation D a—
Where an option on certain land is executed to the Government on 20 May of a certain year and is followed by deed delivered to the Government 29 July, the land is subject to the taxes for the year, C. S., 7987, and also is land which the owners contract to dedicate to a city which contract is executed 27 June.
4. Taxation G a—
The valuation of property for taxation as fixed by the county is binding on the city in which the land is situate.
Appeal by defendants from Grady, J., at April Term, 1933, of GRAVEN.
This is a controversy without action submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts:
1. On 1 January, 1930, Charles S. Bryan and Alice II. Bryan owned lots Nos. 280, 281, 282, and 283, in the plan of New Bern, N. O., Charles
5. Bryan being seized of an estate in fee simple, subject to the life estate of Alice II. Bryan, in and to said lands.
2. Said land is bounded on the east by Middle Street, on the north by New Street, on the west by Hancock Street, and on the south by lots Nos. 252, 253, 254, and 255 in the plan of said city.
3. Said land was valued and assessed for taxation by duly appointed list taker and assessors of said county in manner following, viz.: No. 152 Middle Street, at a total valuation for the years 1927 to 1930, inclusive, of $54,000, and at a total valuation for the years 1931 and 1932 of $48,500. Based on the assessors’ notations appearing on the original assessment records, the following distribution of the said valuations appears equitable and just:
Eos the Yeak 1930
214 ft. x 164 ft. on Middle Street at $100.$21,400.00
100 ft. x 214 ft. on New Street at $50. 5,000.00
214 ft. x 164 ft. on Hancock Street at $50. 10,700.00
Buildings on Middle Street. 15,400.00
Buildings on Hancock Street. 1,500.00
$54,000.00
Foe the Yeaes 1931 ahd 1932
214 ft. x 164 ft. on Middle Street at $100.$21,400.00
100 ft. x 214 ft. on New Street at $50 . 5,000,00
214 ft. x 164 ft. on Hancock Street at $50. 10,700.00
Buildings on Middle Street. 10,400.00
Buildings on Hancock Street . 1,000.00
$48,500.00
For the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, and prior thereto all said lots Nos. 280, 281, 282, and 283 were listed as one lot as follows: 1 lot No. 152 Middle Street; and for the years 1930 and 1931 they were sold for taxes as 1 lot No. 152 Middle Street; and during all said times and for many years prior thereto were used as residence and home of the late James A. Bryan, and since his death to April, 1932, as home and home-site of his widow, Alice H. Bryan.
5. Said Charles S. Bryan and Alice H. Bryan contracted in writing by option 20 May, 1931, to deliver to the United States of America a good and sufficient deed for a lot bounded as follows, . . . ; said lot being a portion of said lands valued and assessed for taxation as aforesaid as Middle Street lot at $100 per front foot on Middle Street; and in addition thereto said Charles S. Bryan and Alice H. Bryan agreed to dedicate and convey to the city of New Bern a strip of land 20 feet in width and extending from said United States lot westwardly along New Street to Hancock Street for the purpose of widening New Street; said strip of land being portions of said lands valued and assessed as aforesaid as New Street lot and Hancock Street lot at $50 per front foot on New and Hancock streets.
6. By contract in writing dated 4 June, 1932, following said option signed by tbe United States and executed and delivered by tbe plaintiffs to tbe United States on 27 June, 1932, and followed by deeds, possession of wbicb deeds was delivered 29 July, 1932, to United States, tbe plaintiffs sold to tbe United States tbe said lot 200 feetx 164 feet for a post-office site and to tbe city of New Bern tbe strip of land 20 feet in width along New Street. There has been no tender or delivery of tbe deed to tbe city of New Bern for tbe 20 foot strip for tbe street.
7. Neither county nor city taxes have been paid on said lands since tbe payment of taxes for tbe year 1929. All said lands listed as “1 lot No. 152 Middle Street valued $54,000, and personalty valued $3,900,” was sold 2 November, 1932, to Craven County, for tbe taxes of 1930, amounting to $1,201.65, as will more fully and at large appear from tbe certificate issued to said county; and all said land listed as “1 lot No. 152 Middle Street valued $48,500, and personalty valued $5,100,” was sold 3 October, 1932, to said county for tbe taxes of 1931, amounting to $928.75, as will more fully and at large appear from tbe certificate issued to said county; all said land values, assessed and listed as aforesaid, was sold 2 November, 1931, to said city for tbe taxes of 1930, amounting to $725.75, and sold 7 November, 1932, to said city for tbe taxes of 1931, amounting to $672, as will more fully and at large appear by reference to tbe certificates issued to said city and copies of wbicb are attached hereto; but no foreclosure suit has been begun.
8. If subject to apportionment: Of tbe whole county tax of $1,201.69 on tbe whole of said land and all personalty of said Alice H. Bryan, for tbe year 1930, tbe sum of $764.31 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and tbe strip of land dedicated for street purposes; and of tbe whole city tax of $725.75 on tbe whole of said land and all personalty of said Alice H. Bryan for tbe year 1930, tbe sum of $458.56 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and said strip of land.
If subject to apportionment: Of tbe whole county tax of $928.75 on tbe whole of said land and all personalty of said Alice H. Bryan for tbe year 1931, tbe sum of $580.81 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and strip of land; and of tbe whole city tax of $672 on tbe whole of said land and all personalty of Alice H. Bryan for tbe year 1931, tbe sum of $415.81 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and said strip of land.
If subject to apportionment: Of tbe whole county tax of $816.00 on tbe whole of said land and all personalty of said Alice H. Bryan for tbe year 1932, the sum of $565.60 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and strip of land; and of the whole city tax of $586.50 on the whole of said land and all personalty of said Alice H. Bryan for the year 1932, the sum of $395.14 is fairly chargeable against said post-office site and said strip of land, if said post-office site and strip of land is liable for taxes of 1932.
9. On or about 3 April, 1933, Charles S. Bryan and Alice H. Bryan requested said J. A. Patterson, special tax collector, and B. O. Jones, auditor of said county, to investigate and determine the pro rata part of said assessments justly applicable to the lot sold and conveyed as aforesaid to the United States and to the strip of land dedicated and conveyed as aforesaid to the city of New Bern, and they have determined same to be as hereinbefore set out, and plaintiffs have tendered payment of the tax, fairly ascertained to be due against same, together with all tax charged against the personal property of said Alice H. Bryan in whose name said land is charged and assessed for taxes, and have requested said tax collector and auditor to release said lot conveyed as aforesaid to the United States and said strip of land conveyed as aforesaid to the said city, from the tax lien.
10. The plaintiff, Mrs. Alice H. Bryan, tax lister and life tenant of said property and liable for taxes thereon, applied to county auditor of Craven County on .February, 1933, for first time to prorate the taxes on lot agreed to be sold to the United States for post-office site.
11. The United States has never paid the plaintiffs the purchase price for said post-office site, but has delayed payment of said purchase price because of the nonpayment of taxes thereon and the transaction has never been closed. Said purchase money has not been listed for taxes. Charles S. Bryan is a nonresident of North Carolina and receives $29,500 of the $35,000.
12. Upon execution of said contract of 4 June, 1932, accepted 27 June, 1932, by plaintiffs, the United States caused its engineers to place concrete markers at each corner of said lot and had its architect to make plans for the public building; had borings made to test foundation on different parts of the site and the contract provided upon 60 days notice from the government the plaintiff, Charles S. Bryan, should remove all buildings from and clear the site to the satisfaction of the custodian of government property. That the servant of Alice H. Bryan has lived on the property not contracted to be sold and looked after all the property up to present date for this plaintiff but the furniture of Charles S. Bryan remained in the mansion until December, 1932, and 18 January, 1933, the government gave notice to Charles S. Bryan to remove all buildings and clear the site, etc., within 60 days from date of such notice and same were removed within said time, the keys of said mansion were beld by tbe life tenant until December, 1932, and then turned over to Charles S. Bryan in whom the building was reserved.
In the Superior Court it was adjudged that the post-office site and the twenty-foot strip are subject to taxation for 1932; that the defendants, have a right to separate said land conveyed to the United States and said strip dedicated to the city from the balance of the Bryan lot for the taxes assessed for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, and they are hereby separated from the remaining part of the Bryan property for said years, leaving the unpaid part of the taxes for said years due both the county and city in force as against the part of the Bryan property not so being conveyed to the United States and not so being dedicated to the city; that the specific sums set out in the judgment are chargeable against the post-office site and the 20-foot strip for the respective years; and that upon payment of these sums the officers give receipts therefor and the designated site and strip be discharged from the tax liens of the county and city. The judgment contains other provisions which need not be recited.
The defendants excepted to the judgment and appealed.
W. H. Lee and Warren & Warren for appellants.
R. A. Nunn, Ernest M. Green and Ward & Ward for appellees.

Opinion:
Adams, J.
The lot on which the late James A. Bryan had his residence in the city of New Bern was formerly listed for taxation as "Lot No. 152 Middle Street." Subsequently Charles S. Bryan acquired the title in fee to this property, subject to the life estate of Mrs. Alice II. Bryan. Lot 152 was composed of four city lots numbered 280, 281, 282, 283. On 20 May, 1931, the owners executed and delivered to the United States a written option of purchase, for a post-office site at a fixed price, the lot fronting on Middle and New streets, and at the same time agreed to dedicate and convey to the city of New Bern a strip of land twenty feet in width extending along New Street from the lot described in the option to Hancock Street. The lot on which the option was given and the 20-foot strip are a part of lot 152. The plaintiffs conveyed title to the post-office site on 29 July, 1932, and received the purchase money on 14 April, 1933, but they have not tendered to the city a deed for the 20-foot strip for widening the street.
On 2 November, 1931, the sheriff of Craven County sold lot 152 Middle Street for the delinquent taxes of 1930, and again on 3 October, 1932, for the delinquent taxes of 1931, and on these respective dates issued certificates of sale to the county of Craven. On 2 November, 1931, the same land was sold for the city taxes of 1930, and on 7 November, 1932, for the city taxes of 1931, and certificates of sale were issued by tbe municipal tax collector to tbe city of New Bern. For tbe taxes of 1932 no sale bas been made.
Tbe appellants' assignments of error present tbe question whether tbe trial court committed error in bolding that tbe lot sold to tbe United States for a post-office site and tbe 20-foot strip dedicated to tbe city of New Bern can be segregated from tbe remainder of tbe property and released from tbe lien of taxes for tbe years 1930, 1931, and 1932, upon payment of tbe respective sums found to be their "equitable and just" burden of taxation under tbe proposed apportionment.
In reference to real property it is provided that tbe lien of tbe State,, county, and municipal taxes levied for any and all purposes in each year shall attach to all real estate of tbe taxpayer situated within tbe county or other municipality by which tbe tax list is placed in tbe sheriff's bands, on tbe first day of June, annually, and shall continue until such taxes, with any penalty and costs which shall accrue thereon, shall be paid. C. S., 7987.
Tbe General Assembly amended this statute in 1929 by providing' that tbe tax lien should be preferred to any other lien upon tbe real estate of tbe taxpayer within tbe county and to tbe inchoate right- of dower or tbe curtesy initiate. Public Laws, 1929, chap. 306. In 1931 this was followed by other amendments. Public Laws, 1931, chap. 83. Tbe second proviso of tbe latter act is in these words: "In all cases where tracts of land have been subdivided into lots, but have been returned, charged, and assessed as a whole tract, tbe sheriff or other tax collecting officer, together with tbe auditor, county accountant or other agency performing tbe duties of such auditor or accountant, shall, upon application of any person interested, make an investigation and determine tbe pro rata part of said assessment justly applicable to any lot or lots, and shall thereupon, upon payment of tbe tax fairly ascertained to be due against such lot or lots, together with a ratable share of tbe tax charged against tbe personal property of tbe party in whose name the land is charged and assessed at any time prior to tbe commencement of tbe advertisement of such property for sale for taxes prior to tbe sale of said property for taxes, release tbe said lot from tbe tax lien. However, tbe tax collector or sheriff shall require tbe owner, upon bis application for a release, to pay all of bis personal property tax charged on tbe return."
As tbe whole amount assessed against tbe personal property bas been paid, tbe ultimate question is whether tbe tax can be apportioned as contended by tbe plaintiffs.
Tbe defendants suggest two obstacles in tbe way of tbe apportionment. They say that tbe land must have been subdivided into lots but returned, charged, and assessed for taxation as "a whole tract." We do not regard this as a fatal objection. It is admitted in the appellants' brief that lot 152, although listed and assessed as one lot, was composed of the four city lots heretofore described. The statute applies to cases in which the subdivision has been made and the lot has been assessed as an entity; the date of the subdivision, whether before or after the adoption of the amendment, is immaterial.
It is furthermore contended that the apportionment cannot be made after the land has been sold and the certificates of sale have been issued to the purchasers. The statute, though somewhat obscure, seems to indicate that the "application of any person interested" must be made prior to the time the property is advertised for sale. The plaintiffs argue that this clause is directory and that the application may be made at any time before the certificates are foreclosed. A regulation affecting a method is frequently regarded as directory, but a procedure may not be treated as directory when it contravenes a positive and essential legislative requirement. Land Co. v. Smith, 151 N. C., 70. According to the appellants' contentions the question is, not whether the plaintiffs can enforce the apportionment, but whether the defendants have a legal right to make it — the two interrogatories submitted to the court being whether the 20-foot strip of land is subject to the taxes of 1932 and whether it is lawful for the defendants to apportion the taxes that are due and uncollected. To each the court gave an affirmative answer, and we concur in the judgment. The valuation fixed by the county authorities is, of course, binding on the city. R. R. v. Comrs., 188 N. C., 265; Guano Co. v. New Bern, 172 N. C., 258. Judgment
Affirmed.