Rosenburger v. Schull
Opinion
The law of the case seems to have been already settled. Was there a substantial occupancy which might have presented itself to the eye of the assessor, is a question that was sufficiently raised and fairly put to the jury. The assessor had nothing to do with the misapprehension or mistakes of the occupant; it was [394]*394sufficient that there was a personal responsibility for the taxes in order to make it his duty to assess the land as seated. There was in fact an acre and a half in actual tillage, a nucleus sufficient, when accompanied by residence or vacant land, to constitute a title by improvement; and it was entirely sufficient to give a particular denomination for purposes of assessment. The cause was therefore left to the jury on its true principles.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
7 Watts 390 (Rosenburger v. Schull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.