Case Name: Finn, Appellant, v. Mellon
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1919-06-21
Citations: 265 Pa. 147
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 33
Parties: Finn, Appellant, v. Mellon.
Judges: Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
Finn, Appellant, v. Mellon.
Taxation — Tax liens — Seated lands — Statutes—Repeal-—Acts of April 29,1844, Sec. 41, P. L. 501; June 4,1901, P. L. 364, und May 21,1913, P. L. 285.
1. Tbe Act of May 21, 1913, P. L. 285, relating t,o tbe “return of taxes on seated lands, and providing for the sale of such lands,” repeals so much of tbe Act of June 4,1901, P. L. 364, as in any way related to tbe procedure for the collection of tbe claims for taxes, and this included tbe filing of a claim for taxes in tbe prothonotary’s office. Tbe Act of May 28,1915, P. L. 599, did not recognize tbe right of a municipality to file a claim for taxes in tbe prothonotary’s office, as tbe act did not in any manner reenact any of the provisions of tbe Act of 1901, that were repealed by tbe Act of 1913.
2. Tbe Act of June 1, 1915, P. L. 660, amending the Act of May 28, 1915, P. L. 599, did not undertake to declare that claims may be filed, nor tbe effect of sucb filing but merely stated that where sucb claims for taxes have been filed against separate or distinct properties in one amount covering all tbe properties, tbe authorities may accept tbe tax according to tbe tax rate and assessed valuation, against any of the pieces of property and thus discharge tbe lien .against sucb property.
3. There is nothing in all tbe acts to support tbe view that the legislature intended authority be given county treasurers to sell land for taxes, and for tbe same taxes like authority be given to tbe sheriff; or that when one procedure was adopted for such sale, it preserves tbe procedure of tbe other set.
4. If there is no remedy provided for tbe enforcement of a lien, tbe lien is worthless.
Argued March 3, 1919.
Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1918, No. 72, affirming order of C. P. Beaver Co., March T., 1916, No. 336, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in case of Henry Finn v. W. J. Mellon and Smith D. Hicks, Administrators of Hiram Hicks, defendants, and Emma Hicks, Smith D. Hicks, James H. Hicks, Geo. Hicks, Isabella Hicks, Margaret Schier and Charles Bradshaw, Guardian ad litem of Leroy Potter and Emma Potter, terre-tenants.
Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court.
See Finn v. Mellon, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 7.
The Superior Court affirmed the order of the common pleas. Plaintiff appealed.
jblrror assigned was judgment of the Superior Court.
D. A. Nelson, with him James L. Hogan, for appellant.
Richard S. Holt, for appellees.
June 21, 1919:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The single question involved in this appeal has met with a very full and satisfactory discussion in the opinion adopted by the learned Superior Court affirming the judgment of the court below. Our views accord with those therein expressed. The assignments of error are accordingly overruled, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.