Hamilton Cnty. v. Bailey
Decision Date | 12 November 1881 |
Citation | 12 Neb. 56,10 N.W. 539 |
Parties | HAMILTON COUNTY v. BAILEY. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Hamilton county.
A. W. Agee, for plaintiff.
J. S. Miller, for defendant.
In December, 1879, the defendant filed the following account with the commissioners of Hamilton county: “September 17th, bridge notice, 85 cents; September 17th, road notice, four months, two squares, $5; October 4th, 1,364 land descriptions, at 20 cents, $272.80; October 4th, 594 town-lot descriptions, at 10 cents, $59.40; November 17th, 500 election certificates, $2; November 22d, notice to supervisors, $1.20.” Of this account $9.05 was allowed for blanks and notices on the sixth day of December of that year, and $195.70 for publishing the delinquent tax list. On the twenty-fourth day of December of that year the claim was reconsidered and the matter continued to the next session of the board. At the next session of the board the defendant was again allowed $195.70 for publishing the delinquent tax list. The defendant served notice upon the board of his intention to appeal to the district court, and soon thereafter, and before the expiration of 20 days from the time said account was allowed, applied to the county clerk and obtained the warrant drawn in his favor on said account, and on presenting the same to the county treasurer received the sum of $195.70 in cash. On appeal to the district court the order of the county commissioners was affirmed. The county brings the cause into this court by petition in error, and the defendant has also filed a cross-petition in error. The errors assigned will be considered in their order.
1. It is objected there was no authority to publish in a newspaper a notice of the sale of lands for the delinquent taxes of 1878. We are referred to section 109 of “An act to provide a system of revenue,” approved March 1, 1879, as sustaining this proposition. The section referred to provides that This section, taken by itself, would require no notice to be given, but section 183 provides that “An act entitled an act to provide a system of revenue, approved February 15, 1869, and all acts and parts of acts supplemental to and amendatory thereof, and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed: provided, that such repeal shall not in any manner affect any rights heretofore acquired, or the collection of any taxes heretofore levied or assessed, or the validity of any sales for taxes heretofore made, or any right heretofore acquired under any law of this state.”
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thurston v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 29039.
...is thereby precluded from afterwards prosecuting his appeal.” See, also, Gray v. Smith, 17 Neb. 682, 24 N. W. 340;Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56, 10 N. W. 539; Weston v. Falk, 66 Neb. 198, 92 N. W. 204, 93 N. W. 131; Green v. Hall, 43 Neb. 275, 61 N. W. 605, 47 Am. St. Rep. 761;Meade......
-
Thurston v. Travelers Insurance Company
... ... his appeal." See, also, Gray v. Smith, 17 Neb ... 682, 24 N.W. 340; Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb ... 56, 10 N.W. 539; Weston v. Falk, 66 Neb. 198, 92 ... N.W. 204; ... ...
-
Weston v. Falk
...accept a warrant for the amount allowed him by the decision of the auditor, and then appeal from that decision? In Hamilton Co. v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56, 10 N. W. 539, it was held that: “Where an account is filed with the board of county commissioners, and allowed in part, and a warrant drawn ......
-
Zahradnicek v. Selby
...to a tax deed after two years from the date of purchase? These questions will be considered in their order. In Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56, 10 N.W. 539, it was held that the revenue law of 1879 does not repeal act approved February 19th, 1877, so far as it requires a notice of the......