Vester v. Town of Nashville

Adahs, J. Tbe plaintiffs except to tbe judgment on these grounds: (1) Tbe description in tbe assessment roll is not sufficient; (2) tbe defendant failed to keep an assessment book; (3) tbe notice of sale is not sufficient; (4) tbe findings of fact are not supported by tbe evidence. It is provided by statute tbat upon tbe completion of a local improvement tbe governing body of tbe city or town shall compute tbe total cost and make an assessment thereof, and for such purpose shall make out an assessment roll in which must be entered tbe names of tbe persons assessed, tbe amount assessed against them, and a brief description of tbe lots against which tbe assessment is made. Also tbat tbe assessment roll shall be deposited in tbe office of tbe clerk of tbe municipality for inspection by interested parties and tbat tbe governing body shall cause to be published a notice of tbe completion of tbe assessment roll, setting forth in general terms a description of tbe improvement and a time for tbe bearing of allegations and objections in respect to tbe special assessment. 0. S., 2711, 2712. *268 While in cases of injunction we are not bound by the facts as determined in the trial court, there is a presumption that the proceedings below are correct and the burden is upon the appellant to assign and show error. Sanders v. Ins. Co., 183 N. C., 66; Woolen Mills v. Land Co., ibid., 511. The assessment roll consists of a plat or blue print of the streets on which the improvements were made, the names of the abutting property owners, the number of feet, and the amount assessed against each lot. We have examined the exhibits or addenda and are of opinion that the assessment roll was made out in substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute. We also concur in his Honor’s ruling, that, as between the plaintiffs and the defendant the defendant’s failure to keep the special assessment book as provided by C. S., 2722 is not fatal to the validity of the assessments. The assessment roll and the assessment book are sufficiently definite to give all necessary information to the owners of the property against which the assessments were made. The third exception also must be overruled. Evidently the property owners understood the notice as referring to their several lots. The question of constructive notice and the rights of innocent purchasers are not involved. And as to the fourth exception we think the evidence sustains all the findings of fact incorporated in the judgment. The record presents a case in which the plaintiffs were duly notified and given ample opportunity to be heard; and if they saw fit not to avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded they cannot now be heard to impeach the validity of the ordinance or the assessment. Marion v. Pilot Mountain, 170 N. C., 118, 123; Schank v. Asheville, 154 N. C., 40; Hilliard v. Asheville, 118 N. C., 845. The statute of limitations under the facts disclosed is not a bar. The judgment is Affirmed.