Court Opinion

ID: 9673143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:05.767356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.403061
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing.
MERRILL, Justice.
Appellants insist that even though the sale in 1933 for 1932 taxes was void, and although the collection of the 1932 taxes is now barred by prescription, it still was error to dismiss the bill. It is contended that appellants are left without a remedy and they are out of court, because “Being *585out of court, it (City of Birmingham) cannot enforce its lien for any of the years set out in the Bill of Complaint even as to those years which do not extend hack past the prescription period. Should the City file another and new hill in this matter it would be met with a plea of res judicata since a lien for each of said years was claimed in this case and the complaint was dismissed.”
While we can understand appellants’ concern, and consequently are extending the opinion, we cannot agree that the enforcement of a lien for taxes was an issue in this case. It is true that the prayer does ask for certain relief, but the mere asking for impossible relief neither ..gives a bill equity nor makes an issue of the relief requested.
Paragraph B and part of paragraph C of the prayer read:
“If your Complainants are mistaken in the relief to which they are entitled .under the foregoing prayer, then they pray, in the alternative, that your Hon- or determine the amount of taxes that are due to Complainants by the Respondent and order and direct the Register of this Court to foreclose the lien securing the same by advertising said lands for sale in all respects by law required.
“If your Complainants have misconceived the relief to which they are entitled under Paragraph A of their prayer, then they and each of them, in the alternative, pray that the amount of the lien securing the taxes for each of said years subsequent to the tax year 1932 for the State and Jefferson County and subsequent to the tax year 1933 for the City of Birmingham, be determined by this Court, * * *.”
These parts of the prayer clearly seek something other than judicial relief. The circuit and appellate courts are not authorized by any law — common or statutory, to assess property for taxation or to declare a lien for taxes when no amount is claimed.
Their function in this field is merely that of judicial review.
Here, the whole contention of appellants was that the 1933 sale was not void, and that title to the property had been in the State since that time. We held that the bill and exhibits thereto showed that the appellants had known that appellee was claiming the lands, was claiming that the 1933 sale was void, was exercising ownership and acts of possession and was failing to pay taxes'on the property, but knowing all these things, they took no steps to rectify the situation for over twenty years and were barred from attempting to collect the 1932 taxes by the doctrine of prescription.
The prayer for general- relief in the bill was not sufficient to invoke action because there has been no assessment of the property since 1932, and there is no valid assessment of it which is subject to review, either in the circuit or this court.
The attempt to make the amount of the tax lien an issue in the case, or to get the court to determine the amount of taxes due over any period of time, failed because those matters are not determined in the circuit or the appellate courts, and the public officials having the exclusive control over those matters are not parties to this suit.
To lay at rest the question of res judicata in the event future proceedings may be instituted to collect back taxes, we hold that the matter of the lien for taxes or the determination by the court of taxes due prior to their assessment by the proper authorities were not issues in this case and were not matters which could have been litigated in this suit, and the dismissal of the instant suit is not res judicata if proper action is taken to assess and collect such taxes as may'be due.
Application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.