Long Creek Drainage District v. Huffstetler

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Long Creek Drainage District v. Huffstetler

92 S.E. 368, 173 N.C. 523, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 16, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 368 (Long Creek Drainage District v. Huffstetler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long Creek Drainage District v. Huffstetler, 92 S.E. 368, 173 N.C. 523, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 337 (N.C. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

J.

The questions raised by this appeal are settled against the defendant by Canal Co. v. Whitley, 172 N. C., 100, in which it was held that a statute in its essential features like the one before us was constitutional, and that the right to appeal to the Superior Court from the assessment levied constituted “due process.”

The same case also decided that the assessment “is not a debt and does not arise ex contractu. It is not a x>ersonal liability of the landowner to be 'collected by execution, as against which he would be entitled to a homestead. It is a statutory charge upon the land, and must be collected by proceedings in rem in a court having equitable jurisdiction, unless some other method is provided by the statute. If the land benefited is insufficient in value to pay the assessment in full, the remainder cannot be collected out of the other estate of the landowner.”

The assessment roll when made up and not appealed from is in effect a judgment, which is declared by the statute “to be a lien as for *525 special tax upon tlie land of tbe landowner,” and tbe action is one upon a judgment to foreclose a lien, analogous to tbe remedy given for tbe collection of taxes. Revisal, see. 2866. •

If so, tbe action is not barred, as it falls witbin tbe statute of limitations barring actions upon judgments witbin ten years, and tbe statute providing tbat an action on a liability created by statute shall be brought witbin three years has 'no application.

It was, however, erroneous to render a personal judgment against the defendant, as tbe land is tbe debtor, and tbe judgment will be modified by striking out tbe judgment against the defendant and by directing tbat tbe land be sold to pay tbe assessment, with interest thereon, and costs.

The costs of this Court will be paid equally by tbe plaintiff and the defendant.

Modified and affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

J.

The questions raised by this appeal are settled against the defendant by Canal Co. v. Whitley, 172 N. C., 100, in which it was held that a statute in its essential features like the one before us was constitutional, and that the right to appeal to the Superior Court from the assessment levied constituted “due process.”

The same case also decided that the assessment “is not a debt and does not arise ex contractu. It is not a x>ersonal liability of the landowner to be 'collected by execution, as against which he would be entitled to a homestead. It is a statutory charge upon the land, and must be collected by proceedings in rem in a court having equitable jurisdiction, unless some other method is provided by the statute. If the land benefited is insufficient in value to pay the assessment in full, the remainder cannot be collected out of the other estate of the landowner.”

The assessment roll when made up and not appealed from is in effect a judgment, which is declared by the statute “to be a lien as for *525 special tax upon tlie land of tbe landowner,” and tbe action is one upon a judgment to foreclose a lien, analogous to tbe remedy given for tbe collection of taxes. Revisal, see. 2866. •

If so, tbe action is not barred, as it falls witbin tbe statute of limitations barring actions upon judgments witbin ten years, and tbe statute providing tbat an action on a liability created by statute shall be brought witbin three years has 'no application.

It was, however, erroneous to render a personal judgment against the defendant, as tbe land is tbe debtor, and tbe judgment will be modified by striking out tbe judgment against the defendant and by directing tbat tbe land be sold to pay tbe assessment, with interest thereon, and costs.

The costs of this Court will be paid equally by tbe plaintiff and the defendant.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 368, 173 N.C. 523, 1917 N.C. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-creek-drainage-district-v-huffstetler-nc-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack