Northern Liberties v. Coates's Heirs

• Decision Date: 24 February 1851
• Parties: Northern Liberties <I>versus</I> Coates's Heirs.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

15 Pa. 245

Northern Liberties versus Coates's Heirs.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 24, 1851.

ERROR to the Common Pleas Philadelphia.

The case was argued by Brightly, for plaintiffs in error.—He contended that the proceedings were in rem, and are similar to the proceedings for the recovery of taxes on unseated lands; and that this would be a sufficient designation of ownership as to them, he referred to 3 W. & Ser. 238; 1 id. 166, 175; 7 Barr 74; 10 id. 189.

Where a farm is owned and occupied by the widow and heirs of one deceased, it is a sufficient description thereof, on the list of the collector of the district school-tax, to say it is the farm of "the widow and heirs of A. B., deceased:" Wheeler v. Anthony, 10 Wend. 346; 3 Rich 27.

That it was the intent of the act of 1815, to make sales for taxes good, when reasonable care was observed by the officers, and a reasonable opportunity given to owners, by notice that their land would be sold, unless the taxes were paid: 9 Barr 39, per COULTER, J.

McMurtrie, contra.

The opinion of the court was delivered February 24, 1851, by COULTER, J.

The order by which the writ of scire facias was quashed, and the lien of the claim stricken from the record, was erroneous, and is reversed.

The object of the different acts of Assembly on the subject of these municipal charges was that the real owners might, with reasonable certainty, be notified of their existence against a particular lot or parcel of ground. The proceeding is in fact against the lot, or, as it may be said, in rem. And the purpose is to designate the lot by such description as will enable the owners to identify or appropriate it. The only objection here is, that the claim is filed as against "the heirs of John Coates, deceased, owner, or reputed owner, or whoever may be the owner."

It is not objected that the locality of the lot and its boundaries are indistinctly or insufficiently set out. But merely that the term, heirs of John Coates, deceased, designates nobody. Nor is it denied but what John Coates is dead. This language is often used in common parlance, and in the usual course of business, to designate the owners of land which has descended to them from a decedent. And it is used in statutes. It may often be impracticable by any reasonable diligence on the part of the corporate functionaries to ascertain the names of the heirs of a decedent owning property, who may reside at a distance, or even in foreign parts. In Wheeler...