Willey v. Scoville's Lessee

9 Ohio 43
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1839
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 Ohio 43 (Willey v. Scoville's Lessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Willey v. Scoville's Lessee, 9 Ohio 43 (Ohio 1839).

Opinion

[42]*42By the Court,

G-rimke, Judge.

The proceedings in this case show a defect which is very common in tax sales. Lot 32 was listed and advertised for sale, with eight others of the same ten acre lots, by the following description. The first and second columns contain the *range and township, the third enumerates the nine lots by their number, and the fifth contains an apportionment in gross, of the tax for which they were delinquent. The law requires that the auditor should so list and advertise the land as to furnish the owner with a description of the land subject to taxation ; and that the sale shall be advertised and conducted in conformity with that rule. In this instance there was an assessment in gross of the whole amount of the tax chargeable upon the nine lots, and yet each lot was put up and sold to pay the tax on it separately. The land is not treated as an entire tract in the list, advertisement, or sale, but is so treated in the apportionment of the tax. Now it is evidpnt that the course pursued should have been throughout consistent with itself. If the lots might be treated as separate and distinct parcels of land, then the tax charged upon them should have corresponded with that fact in the description. Or, if they should be treated as one entire tract, then, although the assessment of the tax in the advertisement as one aggregate sum, would have been correct, the description of the land would itself be erroneous, and so also would the sale under which the plaintiff in error claims. In either case, the title is defective, and the court were right in ruling out the evidence..

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Beach v. Thrift Investment Co.
33 Ohio Law. Abs. 416 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1940)
Roth v. Gabbert
27 S.W. 528 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
O'Neil v. Tyler
3 ND 47 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Ohio 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willey-v-scovilles-lessee-ohio-1839.