
    SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF STREET ASSESSMENT.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    Johnson v. City of Cincinnati.
    Decided, May 23, 1908.
    
      Assessments — Streets Notice of Proposed Improvement — Sale for Taxes —Confirmation—Life Estate — Title—Sections 15S6S1B and 326S.
    
    The owner of a life estate was served with notice of a proposed street improvement thirty days after the property was sold for taxes and two days before confirmation of the sale. Held:
    
    That on the day notice was served the life tenant was the owner of the life estate, and as such was the proper person to be served, and the assessment thereafter levied was not rendered invalid' for want of sufficient notice.
    
      
      William F. Chambers, for plaintiff.
    
      Charles F. Hornberger, Assistant Solicitor, contra.
    Swing, P. J.; G-iffen, J., and Smith, J., concur.
   This is an action in this court on appeal from the court of insolvency. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the collection of an assessment for a street improvement on Linwood avenue. The ground relied on is that there was not a proper notice given. The property in question belonged to one Kennedy, who died intestate, giving a life .estate to Anna E. Kennedy and the remainder to Louis B. and Nellie Kennedy. The estate of Louis B. and Nellie Kennedy was purchased by the plaintiffs at judicial sale. The property became delinquent for taxes and was forfeited to the stáíe. Thereupon the treasurer of the county brought an action to sell the property to pay the taxes, and said property under said proceedings was sold to the plaintiffs by the sheriff on March 4, 1905. This sale .was confirmed by the court on April 6, 1905. Two days prior to the confirmation of this sale, to-wit, on April 4,. 1905, the notice of the improvement as required by the statute was served on Anna E. Kennedy, the life tenant.

Was this a good service under the statute? We think it was. Section 2268, Revised Statutes, says that special assessments shall be payable by the tenant for life. Evidently the life tenant is the proper person to be served with the notice for the improvement required, for the life tenant is the one charged with its payment.

Section 1536-212 (M. C., Section 52), Revised Statutes, should be read in connection with Section 2268, Revised Statutes, and requires service of notice on the life tenant.- It is claimed, however, that when the sale was confirmed, by the court and the sheriff’s deed made that the title of the purchaser reverts to the time of the sale. This is a settled principle of the law and is thus stated in the syllabus in the case in 59 O. S., 540:

“A deed for real estate, executed by an officer of a court pursuant to its order confirming a judicial sale previously made. takes effect by relation on the day of the sale and vests in the purchaser the right to ‘intermediate rents.’ ”

The court say in its opinion:

“The equity of the rule is manifest, because the purchaser can not escape from the sale because he may think it disadvantageous to him, and he is required to pay interest from the day of the sale on so much of the purchase -price as he has not actually paid. That the right to the intermediate .rents passes to the purchaser as one of the results of confirmation has been held in numerous cases.”

This is a fiction of the law founded in equity, and is for the protection of the purchaser, and goes no further. It 'does not mean that the purchaser was the owner before the confirmation of the sale.

In the opinion of the court in Reed v. Radigan, 42 O. S., 294, the court say:
‘‘It will be found upon an examination of the authorities that in states where a confirmation is required, the purchaser obtains no vested rights until after the sale is confirmed, and if the confirmation * * * is refused the right of the purchaser falls to the ground.”

It seems evident therefore that on April 4, 1905, the time when Arma. E. Kennedy was served with the statutory notice she was the owner of the life estate in-the property; that she continued to be the owner until April 6, 1905, when the court confirmed the sale, and under the statutes she was the proper person to serve and the assessment is not invalid for want of sufficient notice.  