Court Opinion

ID: 9827672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:45:36.104957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.411314
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant stresses this provision of article 1234 of the Statutes, set out in our original opinion: “The fact that more than one parcel of land, the property of one owner or jointly owned by two or more persons, firms or corporations, have been assessed together in one assessment, shall not invalidate the same or any lien thereon, or any. claim of personal liability thereunder.”
It is insisted that by virtue of the very letter of that provision the assessment of the property in controversy and fixing a lien thereon against the “J. M. Lindsay Estate,” as its owner, and also fixing personal liability of that owner for the amount of the assessment, was all duly authorized, and therefore the same cannot be disturbed.
If that construction be adopted, then it would follow that the undivided one-half interest owned by either L. B. Lindsay or his sister, Mrs. J. T. Embrey, could be burdened with a lien for the entire amount of the assessment, and that personal liability would be fixed against them jointly and severally for the whole of the assessment. So to do would be a violation of the due process provision of the federal Constitution. And when all those statutes are considered as a whole, as they should be, we believe it manifest that the Legislature never intended that the statutory provision quoted should be construed as having the meaning insisted on by appellant; especially as that would be in conflict with other provisions to the effect that the property of different owners and their respective personal liabilities for the assessments should all be separately assessed, and that each owner shall have the right to discharge his property and his personal liability by paying off the amount assessed against his property, as provided in the first sentence of -article 1234, which is the extent to which the Legislature had constitutional authority to go.
Another point urged by appellant 'is based on the fact found by the trial judge that L. B. Lindsay had general authority from -Mrs. Embrey to look after and manage the property, collect the rents therefrom, to pay taxes thereon out of funds kept in their joint account, etc. The argument advanced is, that out of that joint account, and with the authority vested in him to use the same, L. B. Lindsay can discharge the lien fixed for the entire assessment and also the joint and several personal liability of the two owners therefor; and that thus the rights of each owner would be fully protected to the same extent as if the amount of the assessment had been divided equally and one-half assessed against each owner’s one-half interest in the property with personal liability for that amount fixed for that half only against each owner. That argument is unsound, because it is based on the assumption that L. B. Lindsay will continue such management of the property and'will continue to have funds in the joint account to meet those demands; while it may happen that through death or from some other cause he may cease to so represent Mrs. Embrey, and even if that contingency doeá not arise, the funds in the joint account may cease to be sufficient to meet those demands. The argument is untenable for the further reason that it ignores the mandatory provisions of the statutes, a compliance with which was necessary to give the city council jurisdiction to make the assessments in the first instance. And the assessments being void for lack of compliance with those proceedings, they could not be validated in the manner suggested in the argument, by any court.
It is to be noted further that it was not alleged in the plaintiff’s petition, nor was there any evidence to show that L. B. Lindsay and Mrs. Embrey were partners owning and managing said real estate as a partnership business, in the partnership firm name of “Lindsay Estate” ; the allegation in plaintiff’s petition 'being that the property-was managed, handled, and controlled by L. B. Lindsay with the consent of Mrs. J. T. Embrey. under the name of the J. M. Lindsay estate.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.