Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: H. M. Hampton, Attorney for Appellant;
A. M. Roland, Attorney for Appellee.
Filed: Jun. 15, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Assuming, but not deciding, that the principal question of law argued by appellant on this appeal was properly raised and required to be decided by the court below on the issues presented in a foreclosure case, the proposition to be discussed is whether or not the alleged unconstitutionality of a portion of Section 920, C. G. L. 718 R. G. S., relating to the mode of assessing for taxation *Page 118 lands not within limits of cities and towns, rendered void a tax sale and certificate based upon a
Summary: Assuming, but not deciding, that the principal question of law argued by appellant on this appeal was properly raised and required to be decided by the court below on the issues presented in a foreclosure case, the proposition to be discussed is whether or not the alleged unconstitutionality of a portion of Section 920, C. G. L. 718 R. G. S., relating to the mode of assessing for taxation *Page 118 lands not within limits of cities and towns, rendered void a tax sale and certificate based upon an..
More
In this case motion for rehearing was filed and granted. The motion was granted because it appeared that the case had been noted for oral argument and this notation was overlooked and the opinion was written without the cause having been orally argued before the Court. The case was set down for oral argument and on the day on which it was to be argued the Court received advice from counsel that oral argument would not be presented.
The opinion and judgment of this Court heretofore rendered and filed on June 15, 1933, is now reaffirmed and adhered to.
So ordered.
DAVIS, C. J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
