
    COLLECTION OF UNPAID TAXES BY SUIT.
    [Circuit Court of Hamilton County.]
    John H. Gibson, Treasurer of Hamilton County, Ohio, v. Griffin T. Miller et al.
    Decided, February 3, 1906.
    
      County Treasurer — Action Vy, for Collection of Unpaid Taxes — Act of April 25, 1904 — Pleading.
    1. An action by a county treasurer for tbe collection of unpaid taxes, which was pending at the time of the amendment of Section 1104, on April 25, 1904, is subject to the provisions thereof.
    2. An allegation that taxes and assessments stand charged on the forfeited duplicate is mere surplusage so far as the right to maintain the action is concerned, but if it appear that the property was improperly advertised and offered for sale on the delinquent list, the defendant is entitled to an allowance for costs and interest expended on that account.
   Per Curiam.

The act of April 25th, 1904 (97 O. L., 403), in so far as it amended, the act of April 4th, 1902, is remedial, and under Section 3 of the act applies to this action, which was pending at the time. Section 79, R. S.; Railroad Company v. Commissioners, 35 O. S., 1.

The act of April éth, 1902 (95 O. L., 93), and the act of April 5th, 1904 (97 O. L., 403), each amending Section 1104, Revised Statutes, contain substantially the same provision, to-wit:

“And it is sufficient, having made the proper parties, for the treasurer to allege in his petition that the taxes and assessments, or either, stand charged on the duplicate or duplicates against said premises, the amount thereof, and that the same are unpaid.”

The allegation, therefore, that the taxes and assessments stand charged on the “forfeited duplicate” will, so far as plaintiff’s right to maintain the action is concerned, be deemed surplusage, although the proof shows that they appeared on the delinquent duplicate. It appears that this property in fact was improperly advertised and offered for sale on a delinquent list, and if defendant has illegally been subjected to any penalties, costs or interest, on this account, due allowance could be made in this action, but we do not find that any illegal charges are made against him on this account.

W. F. Chambers, for plaintiff.

É. R. Donohue, contra.

The costs incurred in making unnecessary parties will be taxed against the plaintiff. Decree in favor of the plaintiff.  