Affirming.
This action was instituted by the City of Pineville, a city of the fourth class, against the administrator and unknown heirs of S.S. Taylor, who died in 1936, for the purpose of collecting delinquent taxes on two pieces of property left by him. Summons was served on the administrator. The taxes had been assessed in the name of S.S. Taylor estate. When the city learned that the only heir of S.S. Taylor was a daughter, Ramona, 15 years of age, who was residing with a relative in Cleveland, Ohio, it filed an amended petition making Ramona Taylor and M.G. Colson, her guardian, parties defendant. Summons was served on the guardian. The warning order attorney and the guardian were present when *Page 797 depositions were taken for the city and they actively participated in the case. The warning order attorney made the following report:
"For his report as warning order attorney, the undersigned states that immediately upon his appointment herein as such, he wrote a letter to Ramona Taylor at her address in Cleveland, Ohio, where she lived and made her home with her aunt, Lula Taylor Hopkins. The aunt, Mrs. Hopkins, answered the letter requesting me to work out something for the benefit of the infant defendant, Ramona Taylor. Later, Ramona Taylor and her aunt came to Pineville and we went over the situation, in view of this suit, and decided the best way out is to let one piece of the property involved sell to pay the taxes and give the girl some money to keep her in school. Ramona stayed here for several weeks, but was sent somewhere to school.
"I attended the taking of depositions in this case September 25 and 26, 1944, and learned from the witnesses that perhaps the best thing for the infant defendant is to let the lots in Block 33 sell, as testified by Ida Smith. I would recommend that it is for the best interests of the infant nonresident defendant, Ramona Taylor, to have the commissioner sell those lots to pay these taxes. She does not collect enough rent on the property to keep it up and pay the taxes, and it is a burden to her."
Judgment was entered directing the sale of the property as recommended by the warning order attorney. The property was appraised at $3000 and brought $2000 at the sale. In due time Ramona Taylor and her guardian filed exceptions to the sale. It is stated in the exceptions that M.G. Colson was the duly appointed, acting and qualified, guardian of Ramona Taylor, an infant 15 years of age. One of the exceptions is based upon the ground that the property was assessed in the name of S.S. Taylor estate rather than against Ramona Taylor, the real owner of the property. It is set forth in another exception that no bond was executed as required by Section 410 of the Civil Code of Practice. The exceptions show also that Mrs. Ida Smith offered to execute bond guaranteeing that the property would bring as much as $3000 at another sale if the exceptions should be sustained. The court set aside the sale and *Page 798 approved the bond of Mrs. Ida Smith, wherein she guaranteed that the property would bring as much as $3000 at another sale. The court refused, however, to set aside the judgment and order of sale on the alleged ground that it was void because of the failure to execute bond as required by Section 410 of the Civil Code of Practice and the listing of the property under the name of S.S. Taylor estate.
The appellants are contending that the judgment is erroneous because of the failure to execute the afore-mentioned bond and that it is void because of the manner in which the assessment was made.
Some question is raised as to whether Ramona Taylor was a resident or a nonresident at the time the original action was filed, and also as to the manner in which M.G. Colson was appointed guardian. It is clear from the record, however, that Ramona was residing in Ohio at the time the action was filed and a warning order attorney was appointed, and he reported that she was a nonresident. His report shows conclusively that he made a thorough examination of the case, with the view of protecting the interests of the infant. As we have noted heretofore, the exceptions show that M.G. Colson was the duly qualified and acting guardian of the infant. Both the warning order attorney and the guardian were diligent in their efforts to protect the rights of Ramona, and, while it is true no bond was executed as required by Section 410 of the Civil Code of Practice, the court still has control of the case and may, and should, take such steps as appear necessary to protect the interests of the infant before any disposition of the proceeds of the next sale is made. See Carpenter v. Julian,
The manner of listing the property for taxes in cases such as the one here involved is not uncommon. The first paragraph of KRS
Under the circumstances, we think the judgment should be and it is affirmed.