Osburn v. Hide
Osburn v. Hide
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant should have been permitted to show, if he could, that the assessment roll of 1883 was not filed in the clerk’s office in the time required by law, and that the act entitled, “An act to amend section 503 of the code,” etc., approved March 12, 1884, did not cure the irregularity because of the failure of the board of supervisors to receive and approve the roll at its August term, 1884. The true interpretation of the 3d section of that act is that its curative effect was made to depend on the receipt and approval at its August term, 1884, by the board of supervisors of the county, of the assessment roll of 1883. Acts of 1884, p. 14. We do not decide what would constitute receipt and approval by the board of
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles H. Osburn v. E. D. Hide
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Tax-title. Approval of assessment roll. Curative act of March 12, 1884. Although the act of 1884 (Laws 1884, p. 14) provides that all assessment rolls of land for the year 1883, “which were not returned at the proper time, or which may he in other respects irregular and illegal, be and they are hereby legalized,” it is apparent from other parts of the aot that its curative effect was made to depend on the receipt and approval of such rolls by the boards of supervisors at their meetings in August, 1884. 2. Same. Assessment rolls of 1883. Failure to approve in 1884. Accordingly, in ejectment, where plaintiff relies on a tax-title based on the assessment of 1883, it is competent for the defendant to show that the roll was not filed at the time required by law, and that it was not received and approved by the board of supervisors at its August term, 1884, as required by the act of March 12, 1884.