City of Selma v. Hobbs

• Decision Date: 04 May 1922
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 789.
• Citation: 92 So. 900,207 Ala. 420
• Parties: CITY OF SELMA v. HOBBS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

92 So. 900

207 Ala. 420

CITY OF SELMA v. HOBBS.

2 Div. 789.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 4, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; R.I. Jones, Judge.

From an assessment for a street improvement made and entered by the City Council of Selma against the abutting property of S. F Hobbs, he appealed to the circuit court, and from a judgment there rendered against the City of Selma, it appeals here. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

Leo Leva and Pettus, Fuller & Lapsley, all of Selma, for appellant.

Arthur M. Pitts and S. F. Hobbs, both of Selma, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

Counsel for both sides are in accord that there is but one point involved in this appeal. It seems that the appellee's lot was assessed under article 26 of the Municipal Code for paving the street upon which it was located, and no defect or invalidity is urged against the assessment of this particular lot, but it is contended that the assessment roll included lots of the Dallas Academy and the city school board, and left the amount proposed to be assessed against same blank thus failing to comply with section 1375 of the Code of 1907 as to said two lots, and owing to said defect there was not such a completion of the assessment roll as to authorize a notice that would be binding upon this appellee under section 1377 of the Code, and the assessment against his lot was therefore void.

We may concede that the purported assessment against the lots of the Dallas Academy and the city school board was void for failing to set out the amount to be assessed against each of said lots, as required by section 1375 of the Code. Decatur Land Co. v. New Decatur, 198 Ala. 293, 73 So. 509. See, also, note in case of People v. Seymour, 76 Am. Dec. 531. Yet this would not invalidate the assessment against the appellee's lot. While the statute contemplates but one assessment roll, it also requires that the assessment as to each lot shall be separate and distinct from the others. Decatur Land Co. v. New Decatur, supra. It is true that section 1377 provides that:

"After the completion of the proper entries of each improvement, said book shall be delivered to the city or town clerk, who shall thereupon give notice," etc.

Yet we do not think that this provision means that the notice cannot be given until the delivery of the book to the clerk containing a correct and proper assessment as to each and every lot involved, for to give it such a...