Emrick et al. versus Dicken

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1880-01-05

92 Pa. 78

Summary · law.co

Holding. A sheriff's sale of property under a municipal lien judgment vests good title in the purchaser even if the real owner's name was known to municipal authorities and should have been used in the lien, because the governing statute cures any error or irregularity regarding the owner's name. The judgment was affirmed.

A municipal lien for street improvements is an action against property rather than against a person, and such liens may be filed against a reputed or unknown owner when the true owner cannot be easily identified. The law provides safeguards to protect actual owners, including posting notice on the premises and publication before judgment and sale. Once a sheriff's sale occurs under a judgment on a municipal lien, the purchaser obtains valid title regardless of whether the real owner's name was known to the municipality at the time the lien was filed.

In this case, the property was sold under a lien filed against an unknown owner, though the actual owner, George Emrick, lived on the lot and was even named in the viewers' formal report. The court held that a purchaser at a sheriff's sale is protected by the judgment and the applicable statute, which provides that errors in the owner's name do not invalidate the lien or the resulting sale. To allow challenges to such sales based on whether the municipality knew the owner's identity would call into question the validity of numerous prior sales and undermine the protective purpose of the statute.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether errors in the owner's name in a municipal lien proceeding invalidate a subsequent sheriff's sale
The protection afforded to sheriff's sale purchasers under municipal lien statutes
The effect of a property owner's failure to register ownership as required by law

Procedural posture

The case was appealed from a lower court decision, with a special verdict and agreed facts establishing that George Emrick was the actual owner but the lien was filed against an unknown owner.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Mr. Justice Paxson

delivered the opinion of the court, January 5th 1880.

A municipal lien for street improvements is a proceeding in rem. It is filed against the abutting or adjacent property, and involves no personal liability on the part of the owner. In many instances it is difficult to ascertain the name of the real owner. This is especially true as regards unimproved property. Deeds are often left unrecorded, and the record title is not always the true title. Hence it is that such liens are allowed to he filed against the reputed owner, or against an unknown owner. In such cases, however, the law has provided reasonable regulations to warn the real owner before his property can be sold under the lien. When the scire facias goes out it is required to be posted upon the premises, and notice given by publication before a judgment can be taken. With all these safeguards it sometimes happens that a property is sold and the title passed to the sheriff’s vendee without the knowledge of the owner. Yet, even here the act relative to Allegheny county gives him one year in which to redeem. See Act of April 1st 1870, Pamph. L. 751.

It was held in Delaney v. Gault, 6 Casey 63, that a sheriff’s sale under a judgment obtained upon a municipal claim, passes the title to the purchaser whether the real owner be named in the proceedings or not; and that the purchaser in such case is not bound to show that the Acts of Assembly have been strictly complied with; he is protected by the judgment. It is true, in Wister v. The City of Philadelphia, 5 Norris 215, we allowed the owner to defend against the city upon the ground of a non-compliance with the Acts of Assembly in regard to posting and advertising, but that was an entirely different question from the ease of a sheriff’s vendee who has paid his money upon the faith of a judicial sale; and the distinction was pointedly made in the case referred to.

Here the claim was filed against “unknown owner;” a scire facias issued, judgment thereon, and a sale of the premises by the sheriff to the plaintiff below. It appears by the special verdict, and the facts agreed upon, that George Emrick was in fact the owner of the lot and resided thereon, but had neglected to have his ownership registered .in the office of the city engineer as required by the Act of Assembly of 2d April 1869, Pamph. L. 644; that the plot furnished to the viewers to assess damages and returned with the report had no owner marked to the lot in question, but that the formal report of the viewers made the assessment against this lot in the name of George Emrick as owner.

We need not discuss the minor question of the irregularity of the proceedings in regard to posting and advertising. That is disposed of by Delaney v. Gault, supra. The point for our consideration is, whether, as against a purchaser at sheriff’s sale it may be shown that the name of the real owner was known to the municipal authorities, and ought to have been inserted in the lien; and that the omission to do so was such an irregularity as avoided the sale. We must be careful, in our desire to remedy a single case of apparent hardship, we do not unsettle titles in hundreds of similar cases. There have been many sales upon claims filed against unknown owners, the validity of which have never been questioned. Were we now to hold that an inquiry could be gone into to show that the name of the owner was or might have been known when the claim was filed, it is difficult to see why all titles heretofore made upon such claims may not be attacked. The Act of 1870 supra, was careful to avoid this difficulty, and provided by the 14th section, “ That a sale of any property by the sheriff, upon a writ of levari facias, upon any lien authorized by this act, whether the real owner is named or not, shall be deemed a proceeding in rem, and shall vest a good title in the purchaser to the property thus purchased.” And it was provided by the preceding section (13th) that, “ No mistake * * * in the name of an owner * * * shall vitiate the lien, &c.” The plaintiff must be presumed to have purchased at the sheriff’s sale upon the faith of this Act of Assembly. By its express terms any error or irregularity in regard to the name of the owner is cured by the sale. To hold otherwise would make the act a snare instead of a protection.

If there is any hardship in this case it is due to a considerable extent to the negligence of the owner. He appears to have made no attempt at any time to pay his assessment. It is possible he had no actual knowledge of it, but it is not probable. He knew of the opening of the street; is chargeable with knowledge that abutting and adjacent property was liable to assessment; the scire facias was posted upon his premises and duly advertised. And had he not neglected his duty to have his property registered as provided by the Act of April 2d 1869, it would not have been possible to sell it upon this claim, except in his own name as owner, and after recovery by such a service of the writ upon him as in case of a summons.

Judgment affirmed.

Justices Gordon and Trunkey, dissented.