Court Opinion

ID: 9868902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:04:34.258908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:56.904078
License: Public Domain

Modifying Opinion on Rehearing.
Since our opinion on rehearing was handed down (November 27, 1935), the Supreme Court, on December 11, 1935, withdrew its opinion in the Shambaugh Case and filed a substitute opinion, Smith-ey v. Shambaugh, 88 S.W.(2d) 475, 476, modifying its holding regarding the extent of liability of cotenants upon joint assessments for street improvements, but adhering to its previous decision upholding the validity of section 11, c. 106, p. 489, Laws 40th Leg., 1st C.S. (Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 1105b, § 11), authorizing joint assessments.
While this modification calls for no change in our judgment of November 27, 1935, we think it proper that our opinion of that date be modified so as to substitute for the quotation therein from the withdrawn opinion in the Shambaugh Case the following quotation from the substitute opinion in that case: “In the light of these provisions, and of the character of cotenancy involved in the particular clause of section 11 under consideration, it becomes reasonably clear that the Legislature intended that the joint assessment provided in this cause shall have effect to charge the undivided interest of each cotenant in the common property with a proportionate amount of the assessment, and to impose on the cotenant a corresponding personal liability. Neither of said provisions of the Constitution is offended, for the reason that personal liability in each instance is in accordance with benefits accruing to the cotenant, and extends no further than the amount he justly owes. The charge against his property is commensurate with his personal liability. He has' the right to discharge the assessment lien from his undivided interest in the common property by paying his portion of the assessment. Ronkendorff v. Taylor’s Lessee, 4 Pet. 349, 7 L.Ed. 882; Payne v. Danley, 18 Ark. 441, 68 Am.Dec. 187; City of New London v. Miller, 60 Conn. 112, 22 A. 499; Curtiss v. Inhabitants of Sheffield, 213 Mass. 239, 100 N.E. 365, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 402, Ann.Cas. 1914A, 564; People v. McEwen, 23 Cal. 54.”
It is so ordered.
Opinion modified.