text:
Posts Tagged 'Collectivism'
The Slum Past – the Tories' Dream Future?
I found this picture of a London slum in 1889, the year Fabian Essays was published, in Deirdre Terrins and Philip Whitehead's book, 100 Years of Fabian Socialism 1884-1984.
Tags:'100 Years of Fabian Socialism 1884-1984', 'Fabian Essasy's, 'New Liberalism', Capitalism, Children, Collectivism, Conservatives, David Cameron, Deirdre Terrins, Foodbanks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Labour Party, London, Margaret Thatcher, Philip Whitehead, Slums, Starvation, the Poor, Theresa May
Posted in Charity, Economics, England, History, Liberals, Libertarianism, LIterature, Politics, Poverty, Socialism | Leave a Comment »
Jeremy Corbyn Suggests Capping Director's Pay – Media Goes Ballistic
Mike yesterday put up a piece reporting on another good suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn, and the predictable response of outrage and sneering from the meejah. The Labour leader had said on an interview on Radio 4 yesterday morning that he believed that there should be a cap on the pay earned by company directors and senior execs. The media naturally responded by pointing out that Corbyn has an annual pay of £138,000 a year, and tried to draw him into giving a price figure for what the maximum amount earned should be.
The story got onto the One Show yesterday evening, where they did a brief survey of people in the street. Opinions were, as they say, mixed. One elderly objected to the cap on the grounds that it might take away the incentive for people rising to the top. Looking at the headlines on the various papers this morning, it was very clear that it had riled someone at the Torygraph, as this was the story they shoved on their front cover. Other newspapers, like Mail, led by claiming that Labour's policy in immigration was 'in disarray'. Mike's also written another article this week showing that's also rubbish.
Mike in his article makes the point that compared to some of the vast, bloated salaries awarded to company executives, Corbyn's own salary appears very modest indeed. He suggests that it is stupid to try to lay down a particular set figure – it should be based on company turnover and the lowest wage earned by an employee at that company. He also makes the point that the casting of particular star actors can make a great difference to how well a movie does, and that when this happens, everyone else who worked on the movie should also enjoy the films' financial awards.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/01/10/if-we-examine-who-is-complaining-about-corbyns-maximum-wage-idea-well-know-why/
This is all correct. And there's something else that needs to be added:
Japan already has maximum wage legislation.
Yep, it's true. Japan is one of the world's five wealthy countries with a very capitalist economy. The centre right Liberal Democratic party has ruled the country almost uninterrupted since the Second World War. And it also has a cap on how much company directors may be paid. I think it's set at about 20 times that of the lowest paid employee, but I am not sure.
And the limitation of wage differentials is not something that has been simply added on in the course of reform, but an integral part of the dominant, guiding vision of the nature of Japanese society. East Asian societies can be extremely collectivist, stressing group loyalty over individual opportunity or achievement. In Japan the goal was to create a harmonious, middle class society, where there would be no extremes in wealth or poverty. This isn't quite the case, as the Burakami, an outcast group rather like the Dalits in India, and those of Korean descent are still subject to massive poverty and discrimination.
The Japanese have also tried to justify their collectivist outlook through racist pseudo-anthropology. One school textbook claimed that Japanese society was more collectivist and co-operative because the Japanese people were descended from agriculturalists, who had to forge strong links with each other in order to cultivate and harvest rice. We Westerners, however, were all isolated individualists because we're all descended from hunter-gatherers.
As anthropology, it's rubbish, of course. Some social historians have argued that agricultural societies are more prone to tyranny and absolute government, which would include the type of Asian absolute monarchies described by Western observers as 'oriental despotism'. But all human societies were originally hunter-gatherers, including the Japanese. And European society has practised settled agriculture since the beginning of the Neolithic 6,000 years ago.
The origins of Japanese and East Asian collectivism probably lie more in the influence of Confucianism, which stressed the right relationships between the members of society, such as between the prince and the people, and between elders, parents and children, and the still powerful influence of feudalism in structuring social relationships. Instead of a samurai warrior giving his loyalty and service to a daimyo feudal lord, it's now the sarariman – the corporate warrior – becoming part of the retinue of company employees under the lordship of the director.
And European individualism probably comes not from any vestiges of our hunter-gatherer deep past, but from the effect of Hobbesian Social Contract political theorising and the free trade economics of the French Physiocrats and Adam Smith. Hobbes has been described as the first, of one of the first philosophers of the emerging bourgeois society of the 17th century. This was the period which saw Cromwell sweep away the last vestiges of feudalism in England, and the emergence of modern capitalism. But Hobbes' philosophy views people as social atoms, all competing against each other, as opposed to other views of society, which may stress the importance of collective or corporate identities and loyalties, such as family, feudal lordship or membership of trade and professional bodies. Similarly, the founders of the economic theories of modern capitalism, such as the Physiocrats in France and Adam Smith and in Scotland, also stressed unrestrained individual competition. They were also specifically arguing against the mercantilist system, in which the state regulated trade. For example, in the 17th and 18th centuries the British government enacted a series of legislation governing trade with its emerging colonies, so as to tie them to the economy of the home country, which would benefit from their products. Modern Western individualism come from these theories of capitalist society and the perceived operation of its economy.
The collectivist nature of Japanese society also expresses itself in other ways in the structure and management of Japanese corporations. Singing the company song in the morning is one example. Management are also encouraged or required to share the same canteen as the workers on the shop floor. Both of these practices, and no doubt many others, are designed to foster group solidarity, so that management and workers work together for the good of the company.
This isn't a perfect system, by any means. Apart from the immense pressure placed on individuals in a society that places such heavy emphasis on the value of hard work, that individuals actually keel over and die because of it when doing their jobs, it has also made Japanese society and corporations extremely resistant to change. Confucianism places great stress on respect for one's elders and superiors. While respect for the older generation is an admirable virtue, and one which our society in many ways is sadly lacking, in Japan it has resulted in a mindset which resists change or apportioning due blame for historical crimes and atrocities.
At the corporate level, the slow down of the Japanese economy in the 1990s meant there was no longer such a pressing need for company staff to work such long hours. However, so great is the corporate inertia, that staff still feel that they have to keep working past six O'clock in the evening, even if there is little or no work to do, because they don't want to be seen as breaking with the approved practices of previous generations of employees.
And at the national level, it has been suggested that the exaggerated respect for one's elders and ancestors is the reason why Japan has had such immense difficulty confronting the atrocities their nation committed during the Second World War. Japanese school texts and official histories have been criticised because they'd don't discuss the atrocities committed by the imperial Japanese army. One school textbook even talked about the army's 'advance' through Asia, rather than its invasion. The reason for this failure to admit the existence of these crimes, and criticise those who perpetrated them, is that respect for one's elders and social superiors is so engrained in Japanese society, that except for a few extremely courageous mavericks, casting shame on those responsible for such horrors and, by implication, the whole of society during this period, is unacceptable. Even though many over on this side of the Eurasian landmass would consider that a failure to confront the atrocities committed by one's nation to be even more shameful.
Japanese and Asian collectivism is not, then, perfect. But a maximum wage cap certainly did not hinder Japan's advance to become one of the world's foremost industrial countries. And the goal of creating a harmonious, co-operative society where there is little disparity in wealth is a good one.
The title of Mike's article on Corbyn's suggestion for a maximum wage states that the identities of those complaining about it reveal why they're doing so. Indeed. The proprietors and leading executives of newspaper companies, like the Barclay twins at the Torygraph, have awarded themselves immense salaries. They're multimillionaires. This wealth is increasingly not being shared with the hacks, who do the actual work of putting the paper out. The Torygraph has been particularly struck with declining sales to the point that Private Eye's 'Street of Shame' column regularly reported further job cuts. Many of the big newspaper companies depend on the work of unpaid interns, particularly the Groaniad. And even if they're not being threatened with the sack, conditions for the paid staff are becoming increasingly Orwellian. For example, the Eye reported a few months ago that one of the managers at the Torygraph had tried to install motion detectors on the staff's desks to prevent them moving around too much, just like the staff at call centres are also monitored. The hacks were so annoyed, however, that management had to back down and the motion detectors were removed.
As for the film industry, the presence of big name Hollywood stars can sink a movie simply through the sheer expense of paying. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger was paid $7 million for his appearance in the second Terminator movie. While that was a box office success, the presence of 'A' list celebrities in a movie does not guarantee that a film will be a success. One of the reasons why the film Ishtar became such a notorious flop in the 1990s was that the producers cast three major stars, who all commanded multi-million dollar salaries. This pushed the bill for the movie towards $20 million or so, even before the film had been shot. The film was thus under financial pressure from the start.
Apart from the Japanese, there are other, successful European nations that also deliberately avoid huge inequalities in wealth. One of these is Denmark. The newspapers have been full of articles analysing and celebrating the traditional Danish concept of 'hygge'. This has been translated as 'cosiness', but it actually means much more than that. The way I've heard it explained by a Danish friend, it's about being content with the homely necessities. I got the distinct impression that it was similar to the Swedish notion of 'lagom', which translates as 'just enough'. You make just enough to satisfy your basic needs, but no more. And from what I've heard about Danish society, the social attitude there is that no-one should try to appear ostentatiously better off than anyone else. This is not to say that everyone has to do the same low-paid job, or that they should not earn more than anyone else. But it does mean that they should not be conspicuously more affluent.
This is the complete opposite from the values promoted and celebrated by Thatcher and the wretched 'New Right' of the 1980s. They demanded making conditions harsher for the poor, and giving ever larger salaries to management on the grounds that this would act as an incentive for others to do well and try to climb up the corporate and social ladder. The result has been the emergence of a tiny minority, who are massively wealthy – the 1%. Like the Barclay twins, Rupert Murdoch and just about every member of Theresa May's cabinet. For everyone else, wages have stagnated to the point where a considerable number are finding it very difficult to make ends meet.
But wage caps and an attitude that discourages inequalities of wealth have not harmed Japan, nor Denmark and Sweden, which also have very strong economies and a very high standard of living.
The massive difference between the millions earned by the heads of the big corporations has been a scandal here in Britain, to the point where David Cameron and May made noises urging company directors to restrain their greed. Corbyn's suggestion is eminently sensible, if Britain is to be a genuinely inclusive, prosperous society. The outrage shown by various media execs to it shows that the Tories are still committed to a policy of poverty for the many, riches for a very few. And all their concern at reining in executive pay is just platitudes to make it appear that they're concerned when the issue becomes too embarrassing.
Tags:'Hygge', 'Ishtar' (movie), 'Lagom', 'Street of Shame', 'The Telegraph', 'The Wealth of Nations', Adam Smith, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Atrocities, Barclay Twins, Burakami, Collectivism, Company Directors, Competition, Confucianism, Dalits, David Cameron, Elders, Feudalism, Hunter-Gatherers, Immigration, Individualism, Interns, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), Management, Media, Mercantilism, Neolithic, Pay Caps, Physiocrats, Private Eye, Rupert Murdoch, Schools, Social Contract, Textbooks, The 1 Per Cent, The Guardian, The Mail, The One Show, The Terminator, Theresa May, Thomas Hobbes, World War II
Posted in Asia, Crime, Denmark, Economics, Education, England, Film, History, India, Industry, Japan, Languages, LIterature, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Scotland, Sweden, Technology, Television, The Press, Wages, Welfare Benefits, Working Conditions | 2 Comments »
Useful Book: Socialisms: Theory and Practices, by Antony Wright
(Oxford: Oxford University Press 1987)
I was asked a few weeks ago by some of the commenters here what the difference between Socialism and Communism was. In fact, apart from democratic Socialism, which most people understand as Socialism, there is a bewildering variety of difference types of Socialism, and socialists have often strongly disagreed with each other about what it means and how it should be carried out, while advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Anthony Wright was the lecturer in political studies at the Department of Extramural Studies at Birmingham University. His book, published nearly three decades ago, has the subtitle on its front cover 'Why Socialists disagree – and what they disagree about'. It discusses the different forms of Socialism, and the disagreements between them.
The blurb states:
One third of the world's population now lives under a regime which describes itself as socialist. But what precisely is socialism? Marxists claim that they are the only true socialists, but this is hotly denied by Trotksyists, Anarchists, Fabians, Collectivists, Syndicalists, Social Democrats and members of the many other 'socialist' movements.
In this lucid and unintimidating introduction to the subject Anthony Wright argues that the contradictions, rivalries, and antagonisms within socialism arise from the absence of a single socialist tradition. The very word 'socialism' has (as R.H. Tawney put it) 'radiant ambiguities'.
Socialisms develops this theme throughout a wide-ranging analysis of socialist theories and practices, and concludes, provocatively, with a look at the future prospects of contemporary socialisms.
As you can see, the book was written before the collapse of Communism, and neoliberal economics had infected the western socialist parties with different forms of the 'Third Way'. It's quite short at 137 pages, with different chapters on 'traditions', 'arguments', 'doctrines', 'methods', 'actors' and 'futures'. In his conclusion, Wright looked forward to the rigid divisions between the different varieties of socialism breaking down, so that socialists of different persuasions can learn, and profitably borrow from each other.
Tags:'Socialisms', 'Third Way', Anthony Wright, Birmingham University, Collectivism, Fabianism, marxism, Neoliberalism, R.H. Tawney, Social Democrats, Syndicalism, Trotskyism
Posted in Anarchism, communism, Economics, LIterature, Politics, Socialism | Leave a Comment »
The Young Turks on the Sheer Craziness of Michael Savage
In my last blog post, I posted a piece from Secular Talk discussing Newt Gingrich's statement to Fox & Friends that they had created the political Frankenstein's monster that is Donald Trump, now currently rampaging across America. Kulinski stated that he thought Gingrich was slightly wrong in that it wasn't just Fox & Friends who were responsible for Trump, but the entire Far Right milieu. For twenty years or so they have been pushing a very nationalist, anti-immigration agenda, very similar to Trump's. All he has done is to make it absolutely blatant, without the coded language previous politicians and right-wing pundits have used to disguise it. They've loudly denounced 'political correctness', and the result is Donald Trump, who very loudly proclaims that he is not 'politically correct'. Hence the misogyny and derogatory comments about women and immigrants, particularly Muslims and Mexicans.
In this clip, Cenk Uygur discusses one of the other long-standing denizens of American extreme right-wing talk radio, Michael Savage. Savage isn't someone people in the UK have generally heard of, although I can remember reading a feature on him about twenty years or so ago in the colour supplement of the Mail on Sunday. He also got a brief moment of notoriety over here when Bliar's government banned him from coming to Britain. The Islamophobic right put this partly down to New Labour desperately trying to prove they weren't racist by banning a token White right-winger, when most of the others on the list were Islamist hate-preachers. From what I've heard, Savage is extremely nationalistic to the point where he has been accused of anti-Semitism. This is ironic, as I think Savage is actually himself Jewish. His real surname is Wiener. He changed it to Savage after a particular individual, who managed to survive for months on a raft after being shipwrecked, if I remember the Mail article correctly.
Uygur begins by discussing Savage's ratings. He's supposed to be the second highest rated radio talk show host in America. Uygur says that the statistics are debatable, because the way the stats are collected is confused and nonsensical. Nevertheless, Savage's show is broadcast in many American cities, and his message resonates with many Americans.
In the clip, Uygur discusses Savage's statement on his radio show that what America needs is a 'nationalistic party with a strong charismatic leader'. This could come from the Tea Party, but they don't have a charismatic leader at the moment. Uygur points out that the Tea Party at the time of the video -2013 – was at its lowest point of 8%. If Savage had his way, it'd be down to 4%, though he'd probably say it was the best 4% ever and exactly what was needed to go about winning back America. He also makes the point that a 'nationalist party with a strong, charismatic leader', was the exact definition of the Nazis, and asks the question how Savage doesn't know that. My guess is that Savage probably doesn't consider the Nazis properly right-wing or nationalist. I think like many right-wing Americans, he sees collectivism as equalling socialism, which equals Communism and Nazism, because the Nazis claimed they were 'National Socialists'. Nevertheless, the Nazis were very proudly nationalistic, and the Fuehrer was explicitly intended to be a charismatic figure. It was all part of the general cult of the leader. He was supposed to be a charismatic figure, who would energise his subjects, cutting through the layers of bureaucracy that traditionally separated and dulled the relationship between ruler and ruled.
He also attacks Savage's condemnation of the Republican party. Savage states that there is no Republican party. They are just one wing of the Democrats. At one end there is 'the drunk John Boehner', and at the other there's the pseudo-Crypto-quasi-Communist, Barack Obama. Uygur asks the obvious question how Obama could ever be considered a Communist, considering that he has just ratified and made permanent 99% of the tax cuts put in place by Dubya, never sent a single banker to jail for wrecking the economy, bailed out the banks with billions of dollars, and gave $68 billion to the big corporations.
Uygur compares Savage to Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, and Glen Beck, another extreme Right-wing broadcaster, who also seems to believe that America is about to be overrun with godless Communists any second. Uygur states that he thinks that Savage is delusional, and needs medication and psychiatric help. I think he's probably wrong about Savage being clinically insane, no matter how stupid or bizarre his political beliefs are. What I think is clear is that Savage has been one of the right-wing media figures, who have been pushing the Republicans generally into a position so extreme, that they make wretched Ronald Reagan look like a liberal. Savage is therefore, in my view, part of the same extreme right-wing milieu that has created Donald Trump.
Tags:Alex Jones, anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Cenk Uygur, Collectivism, Corporate Subsidies, Cuts, Democrat Party, Donald Trump, Fox & Friends, Glen Beck, Immigrants, Islamists, John Boehner, Mail on Sunday, Mexicans, Michael Savage, Misogyny, Muslims, New Labour, Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Tax, Tea Party, The Young Turks, Women
Posted in America, communism, Germany, History, Islam, Judaism, Medicine, Mental Illness, Mexico, Nazis, Politics, Radio | 1 Comment »
Herbert Spencer and the Equation of Collectivism, Socialism and Totalitarianism
The Libertarian Right in the American Republican party and the Conservatives over here tends to see Socialism as identical to Communism and collectivism. It's why Obama has been loudly shouted down as a 'Communist' and 'Nazi' when he introduced Obamacare and the idea of a single-payer health system. Much of this comes from von Hayek, of course, and Ayn Rand, but it also goes further back to Herbert Spencer in the 19th century. Spencer was the founder of 'Social Darwinism', the attitude that state legislation to protect the weak was bad, because it stopped the operation of the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' which would lead to the gradual emergence of a new, better, fitter, variety of humanity in the course of evolution. And according to G.C. Peden in British Economic and Social Policy, it was also Spencer who identified collectivism as socialism, and claimed that it aimed at the total ownership of the individual and their enslavement, instead of, as Socialists believe, their liberation. Peden states
In his On the Origin of Species, which also appeared in 1859, Darwin portrayed the natural world as one of ceaseless struggle which ensured, by natural selection, the survival of the fittest. It was possible, by analogy, to draw the conclusion that efforts to protect the weak at the expense of the strong would retard the natural evolution of society. Social Darwinism is now most commonly associated with Herbert Spencer, whose( Man Versus the State (1884) certainly made use of biological analogies and accepted that suffering was a necessary aspect of progress. Spencer also equated collectivism with socialism, and socialism with 'slavery', in the sense that society became the owner of the individual. P. 3).
Now Spencer does have a point, in that Communism and other totalitarian, collectivist states did enslave their citizens. However, that does not mean that collectivism and socialism are automatically totalitarian, or even forms of Communism. This does show how Victorian ideas have persisted in the transatlantic Right, most vociferously in the Republican party in America, but also very much over here in the attitudes of many Tories. It's why the media pundits in the Land of the Free have accused Bernie Sanders of being a Communist, and why, for example, two Tory activists in one of the northern towns at one point decided it would be jolly japes to dress up as Red Army soldiers to bate the ruing Labour council. And it explains Margaret Thatcher, who gave a speech to the Tory faithful in Cheltenham in the 1990s attacking socialism as a nasty foreign import related to Communism. Historically, it is, but the attitudes can be very different, as you can tell from the way committed Communists hated and despised 'Reformism' and democratic socialism at every opportunity.
Tags:'British Economic and Social Policy: From Lloyd George to Margaret Thatcher', 'Man Versus the State', Ayn Rand, Bernie Sanders, Charles Darwin, Cheltenham, Collectivism, Conservatives, Democratic Socialism, G.C. Peden, Herbert Spencer, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, Obamacare, Red Army, Reformism, Republican Party, Single-Payer Healthcare, Social Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest, Von Hayek
Posted in America, communism, Democracy, Economics, Evolutionary Theory, Health Service, History, Libertarianism, Politics, Poverty, Slavery, Socialism | Leave a Comment »
Books on Radical History, the Working Class and British Democracy: Popular Movements c.1830-1850
edited by J.T. Ward (Basingstoke: MacMillan 1970)
This discusses the major reform movements in the second quarter of the 19th century, which touched on nearly every aspect of British politics and society. There are individual chapters examining
1. The Agitation for Parliamentary Reform, discussing the campaign for the 1833 Great Reform Act, which expanded the franchise, and attempted to remove some of the most notorious rotten and pocked boroughs.
2. The Factory movement, which campaigned for lower working hours and prohibitions on employing children, or limiting their working hours, and improving conditions for factory workers.
3. The Anti-Poor Law legislation, which attacked the Workhouses set up by the Liberals.
4. Trade Unionism.
5. Chartism. This was the great working and lower middle class movement demanding the establishment of democracy. All men over the age of 21 were to be given the vote, there were to be equal electoral districts, annual parliaments, and MPs were to be paid, so that politics was no longer the province a wealthy elite. Much of their campaigning consisted in the presentation of giant petitions to parliament. It finally collapsed after the mid-19th century, when most of the signatures in its 'monster petition' were found to be forgeries, like 'Queen Victoria' and 'The Duke of Wellington'. Nevertheless, it was a vital episode in the campaign for the expansion of the franchise.
6. The Agitation against the Corn Laws. These had been imposed at the time of the Napoleonic Civil War to keep the price of corn high and so ensure large profits for the farmers by excluding foreign imports. The Liberal politicians Cobden and Bright formed the Anti-Corn Law League to attack them, as they made bread and corn expensive for the working class, and so led to misery and starvation.
7.The Irish Agitation. Most famously led by John Stuart Parnell, this campaigned for Home Rule in opposition to the poverty and oppression experienced by ordinary Irish people under British government. One of the most notorious issues, bitterly resented by the Irish were the absentee landlords, who demanded extremely high rents from their tenants while enjoying life across the Irish Sea.
8. The Public Health Movement. This was another reaction against the disgusting squalor and foetid conditions in the Victorian slums, which led to horrific epidemics of diseases such a cholera. It led to the establishment of local boards of health, subordinate to a central board of health, which were to provide help and advice to the poor on problems with food, clothing, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness. It also resulted in a series of studies and commissions investigating the problems of disease, sanitation and living conditions in towns across Victorian Britain. Much of this was done or inspired by the Benthamite Radical, Owen Chadwick.
These movements gradually transformed industrial Britain. Instead of the laissez-faire philosophy towards government that officially informed government policies and ideology, state interference in the economy and society was increasingly accepted as a necessary means to improve conditions in the new, industrial society that was then emerging. This marked the beginning of a new, collectivist approach to politics that gradually became stronger and led to increasing legislation granting increasing political freedoms and improving conditions for the working and lower middle classes.
Tags:Absentee Landlords, Anti-Corn Law League, Benthamism, Boards of Health, Bright, Chartism, Cholera, Cobden, Collectivism, Corn Laws, Disease, Factory Movement, Great Reform Act, Home Rule, Ireland, John Steward Parnell, laissez-faire, Owen Chadwick, Public Health, Trade Unions, Workhouses
Posted in Chartism, Democracy, Factories, Health Service, History, Politics, Poverty, Trade Unions, Working Conditions | Leave a Comment »


text:
Law Article
The Legal and Lawyers Article
HomeLawsMLM Adlergency Lawsuits – Amlodipine Lawsuit
MLM Adlergency Lawsuits – Amlodipine Lawsuit
Ryan Updated on June 9, 2021 June 27, 2021
Leave a Comment on MLM Adlergency Lawsuits – Amlodipine Lawsuit
The recent Amlodipine lawsuit involving generic Amlodipine and Dextromethazine, the generic version of the prescription drug DMAE, was not an isolated event. In fact, it is symptomatic of a much larger problem: the inability of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the pharmaceutical industry.
The agency allows drug manufacturers to submit drug applications for approval that contains virtually any combination of ingredients they choose, leading to a lack of consistency in the quality of medications on the market.
Amlodipine Lawsuit
One of the most prominent lawsuits involving the use of amlodipine or similar anti-depressants was brought against generic valsartan bacteria with the claim that the product caused a blood pressure medication recall. The FDA did not receive any reports of patient deaths or adverse side effects prior to the recall and identified no contraindications or precautions that should have been taken by patients.
A report from the FDA noted that a patient was diagnosed with congestive heart failure as a result of taking amlodipine. Although there was no causal link to the medication, the FDA received a complaint that the company had not properly notified the FDA of the risk of the combination.
The situation with amlodipine is similar to the one that happened with Losartan lawsuit lawyers.
The company had not provided adequate warnings to patients about the combination of dextrose and amlodipine. As a result, numerous patients became seriously ill and even required hospitalization, leading to the lawsuit.
In the amlodipine lawsuit, the plaintiff was able to prove that the combination caused her to develop serious problems including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and mental retardation. Furthermore, the FDA failed to conduct any analysis to determine whether the combination of dextrose and amlodipine was safe.
Another case that involves a recall involves the misclassification of stadlan.
Stadlan is also known as Arconic and was manufactured by Freseneway Medical Products. The FDA received reports in 2021 that some of the individuals who had received this high blood pressure medication had died.
Since the FDA failed to conduct a toxicity analysis, it is not clear whether or not the combination of stadlan and amlodipine posed any danger to the patient. There have been no further cases involving these drugs or their combination.
There are many other examples where both amlodipine and stadlan were included in a single product.
For example, amlodipine was distributed together with stadlan to patients who already had a heart condition. Similarly, in a case involving lofexidene, which is known as "the smoking drug," the manufacturer was able to combine the two medications to create a new prescription drug called vapabalin.
The combination of these two drugs was disastrous for many patients. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits were able to receive compensation for their pain and suffering caused by these tainted medications.
While the FDA is responsible for ensuring that medications are properly and safely distributed, they are not the same entity responsible for determining whether or not they are dangerous.
As an agency within the US Food and Drug Administration, they are prohibited from providing a consumer warning about a recall. They can only issue such a warning if the recall was due to an ingredient or problem with a drug, which has been determined to be unsafe for the public. The FDA will not issue a recall if it believes that there is not a connection between the recalled medication and any potential side effects. Due to the fact that many of these medications are relatively new and have not yet undergone rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness, the FDA cannot determine the extent of the potential hazard posed by the combination of the two medications.
The courts, on the other hand, have the ability to provide much greater protection when it comes to determining whether or not a drug manufacturer was negligent in their actions in providing these medications with known side effects.
Predatory Lending Lawsuit
An Amlodipine Lawsuit Could Impact Current Diabetes Medications
The Advantages Of Composite Deck Lawsuit
What You Need to Know About An American Eagle Class Action Lawsuit
Crazy Lawsuit Settlements
AT&T Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Class Action Home Depot Data Breach Lawsuit
How to Create a Class Action Lawsuit
Medical Negligence Case? Let Us Help You
Ambit Class Action Lawsuit Funding
ABA Legal Filing Season
Dow Corning Lawsuit – Are You a Plaintiff?
Lawsuit Against For Profit Colleges
When Do I Have a Mosaic Lawsuit?
Copyright © 2022 LawArticle.org. All rights reserved. Blossom Studio | Developed By Blossom Themes. Powered by WordPress. Privacy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Comparing store bought purses and bags to handmade crocheted ones.
While shopping on Zappos website I came across some beautifully crocheted purses that I thought would make great crochet projects to create. These handbags and totes come in all sizes and colors and seem to have some really rave reviews. Crocheted bags would make great items to sell in your Etsy shop, craft fairs, or to give as gifts. Take a look at some of the pattern we have selected to crochet a purse or a tote and some of the ones at Zappos we are comparing them to.
Here's a bag for every reason, with styles that keep you on the cutting edge of fashion--in crochet! Drew Emborsky's handbag designs give you six very cool ways to take it all with you. Plus, optional handle instructions are included for three of the bags!
French Market Tote Kit - Crocheting Kit includes Yarn & Pattern!


text:
The Death of Advertising – An Obituary
It is time now – someone has to announce, officially, that the advertising industry is dead. Business is now only interested in creating brand communications strategies, it is not really interested in buying ads. People still make ads and ads are still an important part of developing communications campaigns, just like film and photography are an important part of making most advertising. But you cannot describe advertising as the film industry. Describing brand communications as advertising is equally myopic and inadequate.
The ad man has been, for many years, a key figure in popular culture. From Samantha's husband in the TV sitcom 'Bewitched' to Mel Gibson's character in the film 'What Women Want' they were never presented very favourably. The ad guy was always a sharply dressed, fast talking salesman https://www.tragedyinfo.com/john-tattersall-obituary-death-john-tattersall-cause-of-death/. A great ad campaign could change the fortunes of a business but the people that created and then sold them to the dull witted, somewhat stiff, clients were never portrayed as people of intellect and integrity.
In real life it was a bit different. The ad industry seemed to attract a particular type of smooth, clever but morally questionable type of undergraduate, it sucked in creative brains that one always felt could have been better employed in the arts. As regards the latter, many did go on to pursue nobler careers in literature (e.g. Salman Rushdie). Many of the most respected film makers started out making ads (e.g. Ridley Scott, Alan Parker and Nick Roeg). They were 'the creatives', the ones who came up with and produced the actual advertising campaigns. The ones who managed the clients – sold them the ideas and collected the commissions – have always been known as the 'suits'. Many of them have become respected business leaders, respected not just for their knowledge of advertising, for example David Ogilvy or Jeremy Bullmore, but for their ability to run big companies, for example Sir Martin Sorrell who bought both Ogilvy's and Bullmore's agencies plus many more to create, WPP, a Footsie50 company. In the 1970's and 1980's one of the biggest brands in advertising, and the people who came to define 'the ad guy' in the UK and around the world, were the Saatchi brothers. One now sits in the House of Lords and the other has become a world-renowned patron of the arts (modern art as it happens, which some regard as an oxymoron typical of a superficial ad guy).
It is probably a stretch to say that advertising ever truly attained the cache of 'finance' or even, God forbid, 'marketing' in the world of business but it did attain a degree of respect and was referred to as an industry. "I work in the advertising industry" was a socially acceptable thing to say. "I am an ad guy" got you a seat, not just at the best restaurants in town, but even the occasional boardroom table, for a while. But not any more. "I work in the Media and Communications industry" is much more impressive and 'ad guy' normally has the prefix, 'old fashioned'. The older and more recalcitrant advertising executive will still introduce themselves as 'an old fashioned ad guy' because they are trying to remind you that they have a precious expertise in advertising and that a 30 second TV commercial or memorable slogan still has value in the world. And they do. But they have been subsumed and superseded by the bigger, more contemporary and complex Communications industry.
Effective business communication involves not just brands but stakeholders. The choice of media is exponentially bigger (the way the Grand Canyon is exponentially bigger than a crack in the road). Advertising was B to C (business talking to or at consumers) whereas Communication is two-way dialogue. At its best, advertising was 'truth well told' at its worst it was hyperbole or downright subterfuge. Communication requires honesty and authenticity. Advertising thrived, in its heyday, on the USP (the unique selling proposition); Communication may have at its heart a 'big idea' but relies on 'multiple touch-points' where messages are tailored to the audience and the occasion. Ads and slogans have their place but when creating brand communications strategies it is just a limited place and not very high up the food chain.
If all this seems a little harsh, disrespectful, mean spirited even, if it seems like it ignores the many thousands of people who still work in advertising and frankly look not a lot different to their predecessors (Calvin Klein suits have lost ground to Paul Smith) at the end of the last century, then consider this – the companies such as WPP and Omnicom that own most of the ad agencies call themselves "Media and Communications Groups" and derive most of their income from marketing services outside making ads. They talk about 'effective business communication' not 'effective ads'. Sir Martin Sorrell or John Wren do not describe themselves as 'ad guys' the way Maurice or Charles Saatchi used to.
0 comment on The Death of Advertising – An Obituary


Rain Barrels are an excellent way to harvest rainwater for beginners. These easy to make water collectors are less expensive alternatives to large rainwater harvesting systems, and are great in meeting small outdoor water demands.
1. Cut a hole approximately 12" in diameter in the lid and another small hole close to the bottom of the garbage can/barrel that is just big enough to tightly fit the faucet into.
2. Attach the screen over the hole in the lid with the PVC glue.
3. Insert the faucet into the hole at the base of the barrel. Place the rubber washer over the faucet fromthe inside of the barrel.
4. Slide a metal washer directly behind the rubber washer and tighten.
5. Finally position your rain barrel under a downspout from the roof and attach a hose tothe faucet.


Don Demoss, a high school buddy, and I met at a class reunion. After sharing stories of our play days in sports, he asked, "what are you doing now?" I shared our mission of drilling wells in Africa. After listening intently, don said, "lets talk again, I may have a contribution for your booth. We were selling antiques and collectible items donated for well projects out of a booth at lingering memories antique mall. His phone call turned into an offer of baseball cards. He had been holding on to these treasured cards and now he wanted to give them to help someone else.
What I didn't know was the size of the collection would be five truck loads of baseball, basketball, football and hockey cards. The sale of this contribution helped place a well in a very desperate village in Togo, West Africa.
…all because a man gave a half million baseball cards.


The Association is very happy to have Steens & Partners in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, as their honorary auditors.
Steens & Partners is part of the International Group Jeffreys Henry International.
JHI has recently merged with ACPA to become the 8th largest accounting organisation in the world.
At the latest General Meeting in Stockholm in April 2005 the JHI/ACPA Group has been reappointed as our auditors until the next General Meeting (likely to be in Mexico).


text:
Book Your Event Speaker 860.997.6802
Dr. Steve Perry
Revolutionizing Education in America
Dr. Steve Perry is one of the most sought-after Nationwide Motivational Speaker in America. Widely respected by grassroots community members and internationally renowned leaders as an educator, social worker and public speaker, his charismatic and compelling voice is an inspiration.
He is the educator Oprah Winfrey, Sean "P-Diddy" Combs, Bishop TD Jakes and Steve Harvey call on to offer insight to parents and children. A diverse array of politicians and groups, from the Urban League to ALEC, have reached out to Dr. Perry to better understand what matters to parents.
Dr. Steve Perry opened his third school, helped Steve Harvey write his new book "Jump," has spoken in over 79 communities and completed his sixth book "Transparanting" in the beginning of 2018 and for 2019 is working on his fourth school with Sean "Diddy" Combs as an investor pledging 1 million dollars to fund the school for local youth. His impact is profound and varied and showing no signs of slowing down.
The word most often used to describe Dr. Steve Perry as one of the best motivational speakers in America is passionate. His authenticity is a welcomed addition to any discussion rooted in improving children's lives and the community. His skills are hard-fought and have been bestowed from his rough childhood all the way up through his graduation from an Ivy League school. There's a richness in his concepts that foster an intriguing point of view on the modern American family.
Dr. Steve Perry's unique and powerful voice is respected and has been featured on MSNBC, Fox, CNN, Al Jazeera, TV One, BET and NBC as well as on the Oprah Winfrey network in multiple shows. His courage and piercing insights provide a fascinating perspective that is not often found in public discourse. Too often race, class, gender, and political affiliations mute others voices. Dr. Steve Perry fearlessly speaks from the heart, which births unpredictability. Premiering January 7, 2019, his new daytime talk show "Breakthrough with Dr. Steve Perry" will air on Fox.
Dr. Steve Perry is the voice of a generation, a people's champion who has been fighting for disadvantaged children and families for 30 years. Passionate and surprisingly funny, Dr. Steve Perry is a man worth listening to.
The News:
The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) proudly announced the launch of its new brand as more than 3,000 charter school teachers, leaders and advocates convened in Sacramento at the 26th Annual California Charter Schools Conference.
Dr. Perry Keynoted the Annual Event
#1 Education Speaker & Daytime TV Host
CONTACTING DR. STEVE PERRY ON SOCIAL MEDIA
© 2018 DrStevePerry.com All rights reserved.


text:
Crop Protection: Biohacking against Fungal Attacks
KIT and Research Partners Develop Sustainable Crop Protection Solutions
The DialogProTec research project developed sophisticated technologies for sustainable plant protection (montage: DialogProTec, KIT).
Harmful fungi cause enormous agricultural losses. Conventional techniques for combating them involve the use of poisonous fungicides. Researchers at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), working with partners from Germany, France, and Switzerland on the DialogProTec project, have developed environmentally safe alternatives that trick the pathogens' chemical communication with plants. Now that the research has been completed, the new technology is ready for use.
First, the leaves turn brown, then the entire grapevine dies. A fungal infection called esca is a threat to wine production in Europe and causes millions in damage to winemakers every year. "This disease has been known in Southern Europe since the Middle Ages, but it never played a major role," says Dr. Alexandra Wolf from KIT's Botanical Institute, which coordinates the DialogProTec project. "But because of climate change, the fungus is now encountering many plants weakened by climate stress." Conventional plant protection usually involves the use of poisonous fungicides to fight fungal diseases like esca. In DialogProTec, the researchers have developed a completely new approach that works without any environmentally hazardous toxins. "In nature, organisms interact using chemical signals. We've been able to identify some of the signals between the host and the pathogen, and to manipulate them," says Wolf, who adds that this "biohack" is precise and effective and has a minimal ecological footprint.
To develop the new methods, the KIT-led project founded an interdisciplinary research network including specialists in botany, fungal genetics, microsystem technology, organic chemistry, and agricultural sciences. The network used about 20,000 fungus strains from the collection at the Institute of Biotechnology and Drug Research (IBWF) in Kaiserslautern and about 6,000 plant species from KIT.
Tracking down Signal Substances with High Tech
The researchers didn't need to work with entire plants and fungi to identify and exploit the right signals. Instead, they worked with individual cells. A microfluidics chip jointly developed with KIT's Institute of Microstructure Technology served as the basis for a miniature ecosystem. "We placed plant and fungi cells on chips a few square centimeters in size so that they can't come into physical contact but can interact chemically via a microfluidic current," says Christian Metzger from the Botanical Institute at KIT. "To make this interaction visible, we equipped the genetic material in the plant cells with a gene switch and a fluorescence gene. Whenever a chemical signal activates the immune system, we can measure the green fluorescence." The gene switches are from wild grapevines, in which the researchers had previously detected an especially active immune response.
Plant Vaccination Ready to Test
During their investigations, the researchers first decoded the chemical communication between fungus and plant that accompanies a fungal attack. One of the things they identified was signal substances that the fungus uses to suppress the plant's immune response. "They're part of a chemical interaction shaped by a long evolutionary process and are produced as soon as the fungus detects specific stress signals from the plant," explains Professor Peter Nick, who heads the project and the Botanical Institute. The team then identified molecules that could be used to reactivate the immune response. "When we use them for plant protection, the plants can often ward off the fungus. You can think of it as a vaccination for plants," says Nick.
DialogProTec's innovative technology is already on its way into practical use and is soon to be tested in the field. In addition to their work on an alternative to fungicides, the project team has also developed new approaches to promoting plant growth or fighting weeds, where signal substances could also replace poisonous herbicides in the future.
About DialogProTec
In addition to KIT, the University of Freiburg, the University of Strasbourg, the Institute of Biotechnology and Drug Research (IBWF), and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland were also involved in the research, which was funded by the "Interreg Oberrhein" cross-border EU program. Over the course of the project, a network of agricultural operations (including wine and fruit producers) and industrial companies (plant protection and technology businesses) formed; the researchers will continue to cooperate with it in the future.
More information: https://www.dialogprotec.eu/start_en.htm
More information on the KIT Climate and Environment Center: https://www.klima-umwelt.kit.edu/english/index.php


Welcome To Onic Computer Official Nepali Technical Channel !
For Motivational, English & Vlog Videos, please, visit our Onic Agyat YouTube channel ! Thanks !
????Please, don't forget to SUBSCRIBE this Nepali YouTube channel !
????How To Learn English Easily ?
????About: This Nepali Technological channel has Tech videos in Nepali Language. Everyday one new tech video is uploaded in this channel !
Thanks for being in this Nepali Tech channel !
How to Enable Dark Mode (Theme) on Facebook Messenger on Android-2019?


text:
West Branch Christina River is a  second-order tributary to the Christina River in New Castle County, Delaware in the United States.

Variant name
According to the Geographic Names Information System, it has also been known historically as Persimmon Branch.

Course

West Branch Christina River rises on the Big Elk Creek and Christina River divides in Cecil County, Maryland and flows south then east into New Castle County, Delaware meet the Christina River at Newark, Delaware.

Watershed
West Branch Christina River drains  of area, receives about 46.2 in/year of precipitation, has a topographic wetness index of 488.40 and is about 25.1% forested.

See also
 List of Delaware rivers

Maps

References

Rivers of Delaware
Rivers of Maryland
Rivers of New Castle County, Delaware
Rivers of Cecil County, Maryland
Tributaries of the Christina River

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Utah HOA Case Law
American National Property & Casualty Company v. Sorensen (common area as insured location under homeowner's policy) '13
Architectural Committee of Mount Olympus Cove v. Kabatznick (standing to represent owners) '97
Bell Canyon Acres Homeowners Association v. Mclelland (declaratory judgment, joinder of parties) '19
Bonneville Tower v. Thompson Michie Assoc. (standing to represent owners, indispensable parties) '86
Brickyard HOA Management Committee v. Gibbons (standing to represent owners) '83
Centennial Pointe v. Onyeabor (late fees as liq. damages, constructive notice) '09
Cochegrus v. Herriman City (common area liability) '20
Country Oaks Condo MC v. Jones (what is unit, unit = enclosed area) '93
Crimmins v. Simonds (enforceability of covenant breached many times) '81
Dansie v. Hi-Country Estates HOA (recording & notice of covenants, merger, general plan or scheme) '99
Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing HOA v. Davencourt et al. (economic loss doctrine, developer duties, implied warranty of habitability) '09
Ditty v. Checkrite (attorney liability under FDCPA) '97
Fink v. Miller (abandonment of covenant, enforcement) '95
Fort Pierce v. Shakespeare (CC&Rs not strictly construed) '16
Gables at Sterling v. Castlewood-Sterling (defective construction, privity, assignment, breach of fiduciary duty) '18
Gonzalez v. Cullimore (FDCPA) '18
Grassy Meadows SR v. Grassy Meadows Airport (amending CC&Rs by developer) '12
Hayes v. Gibbs (general plan or scheme; tax sale) '46
Holladay Duplex Management Co v. Howells (CC&R interpretation) '02
Hutter v. Dig-It (statutory lien never a wrongful lien) '09
Johannessen v. Canyon Road Towers (modification of assessment, ownership interests, estoppel) '02
Kenny v. Rich (attorney fees) '08
Levanger v. Vincent (strict compliance, voting procedures) '00
Lodge at Westgate Park City v. Westgate Resorts (standing to represent owners, promissory estoppel, ratification, common area definition)
Oak Lane HOA v. Griffin (easement by plat) '11
Osmond Lane HOA v. Landrith (authority of entity, authority for HOA action, ratification) '13
Park West Condo v. Deppe (which law governs, strict compliance) '06
Rapoport v. Four Lakes Village (ARC review, requiring neighbors' consent for an improvement, attorney fees) '13
Reedeker v. Salisbury (director liability, ultra vires, CC&Rs are a contract, interpretation, governing law) '98
Rowley v. Marrcrest HOA (waiver, estoppel, ARC review, self help) '82
Secor v. Knight (merger doctrine as to covenants) '86
Smith v. Frandsen (duty of care of developer, builder) '04
Smith v. Simas (injunction not appropriate, balancing of equities) '14
South Ridge Homeowners' Assoc v. Brown (interpreting documents, short term rentals) '10
Stein Eriksen Lodge Owners Association v. MX Technologies (authority of agent, ratification of contract, liquidated damages) '22
Swan Creek v. Warne (authority of entity, ratification, assessments, tax sale, CC&Rs as contract) '06
Swenson v. Erickson (abandonment, architectural review) '00
Swenson v. Erickson (amending covenants) '07
Sycamore Family v. Vintage on the River HOA (statute of limitations, nuisance, trespass) '06
Thompson v. Capener (statute of frauds, ratification) '19
Three Fountains v. Leigh (capital improvements) '98
Timber Lakes Property Owners Association v. Cowan (injunctive relief/irreparable harm) '19
Todd Hollow v. Homes at Deer Mountain (developer assignment) '15
Turner v. Hi-Country HOA (paying assessments when no benefit received) '96
UDAK Properties v. Canyon Creek Commercial (court gives effect to each contract provision, interpretation) '21
United States v. Fox Point at Redstone Association, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01069 (discrimination, assistance animal)
Vanderwood v. Woodward (abandonment, CC&R interpretation, injunctive relief) '19
View Condo Ass'n v. MSICO (developer amendments, plat amendments, takings) '05
Walker Invest v. Sunpeak Ass'n (records request, emails and phone numbers) '15
WDIS, LLC v. Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Association (quiet title, statute of limitations) '19
WDIS, LLC v. Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Association (unsigned covenants voidable not void) '22
Workman v. Brighton Properties, Inc. (paying assessments when no benefit received) '99
Hayes v. Gibbs, 110 Utah 54, 169 P.2d 781 (1946) (general plan - 5% of lots had no deed restrictions, but all lots deemed subject to general plan of restriction; tax title).
Hayes et al.
Gibbs et al.
Supreme Court of Utah.
This case involves the question of whether a general plan or scheme
Members Area. This resource is available to members. Join us by subscribing today!
Appeal from District Court, Third Judicial District, Salt Lake County; C. E. Henderson, Judge.
Action by Robert S. Hayes and another, against Mary Godbe Gibbs and W. J. Goodwin, building inspector of Salt Lake City, Utah, to enforce building restrictions. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the first named defendant alone appeals.
Main Opinion Concurrence
LARSON, Chief Justice.
This is an action to enforce building restrictions. The covenant as set forth in the deeds is as follows: "No residence shall be erected on any of the said lots costing less than $2500.00 no less than 20 feet from the front line of said lots, nor shall any building for business purposes be erected on any of said land." (Italics ours.)
Plaintiff alleges that, in accordance with, and pursuant to, a general plan or scheme of development intended for the benefit of the entire tract known and platted as Douglas Park Subdivision, certain building restrictions were imposed upon the land, a subdivision of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, by the original owners and predecessors in interest of both plaintiffs and defendant. He contends that the restrictions were reasonable, and were necessary to the successful development of this subdivision into a high-class residential district. It is averred that the defendant Gibbs has applied for building permits for the erection of mercantile buildings for business purposes upon lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 17, Douglas Park Subdivision, and unless *57 restrained will proceed with construction thereof, in violation of the restrictions above set out.
Answering, the defendant contends that there was no general plan or scheme in the imposition of the building restrictions such as to justify their existence and maintenance.**783 As to her property, defendant avers that she obtained title thereto through a tax sale, and therefore took the property free and clear of all restrictions.
The title to the specific property in issue, lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 17; lots 27 and 28, Block 14, Douglas Park Subdivision, comes from the Douglas Heights Land and Improvement Company to the Hubbard Investment Company via a conveyance containing restrictive covenants applying to both Hayes and Gibbs. The Hubbard Company conveyed lots 27 and 28 of Block 14 to plaintiffs' predecessors with restrictive building covenants set forth in the deeds. The Hubbard Company conveyed lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 to defendant's predecessors without restrictive covenants in the deed. The record reveals that of the entire Douglas Park subdivision consisting of 1058 lots, only 55, including those now owned by defendant, were conveyed without mention of building restrictions in the deed.
These facts pose two principal issues which will be answered in their listed order:
1. Was there a general plan or scheme which created and imposed equitable building restrictions?
2. Does a tax title extinguish all equitable covenants and restrictions?
Korn v. Campbell, 192 N.Y. 490, 85 N.E. 687, 689, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 1, 127 Am.St.Rep. 925, is the leading case on restrictive covenants in this country. In that case the court in its discussion of different types of covenants describes the first type as follows:
"* * * In the first class may be placed those which are entered into with the design to carry out a general scheme for the improvement or development of real property. This class embraces all the various plans, generally denominated in the English cases as 'building schemes,' under which an owner of a large plot or tract of land divides *58 it into building lots to be sold to different purchasers for separate occupancy, by deeds which contain uniform covenants restricting the use which the several grantees may make of their premises. In such case the covenant is enforceable by any grantee as against any other, upon the theory that there is a mutuality of covenant and consideration, which binds each, and gives to each the appropriate remedy. Such covenants are entered into by the grantees for their mutual protection and benefit, and the consideration therefor lies in the fact that the diminution in the value of a lot burdened with restrictions is partly or wholly offset by the enhancement in its value due to similar restrictions upon all the other lots in the same tract."
De Gray v. Monmouth Beach Club House Co., 50 N.J.Eq. 329, 24 A. 388, 390, further clarifies covenants as follows:
"* * * action is held not to be maintainable between purchasers not parties to the original covenant, in cases in which: (1) It does not appear that the covenant was entered into to carry out some general scheme or plan for the improvement or development of the property which the act of defendant disregards in some particular. * * * (2) It does not appear that the covenant was entered into for the benefit of the land of which complainant has become the owner. * * * (3) It appears that the covenant was not entered into for the benefit of subsequent purchasers, but only for the benefit of the original covenantee and his next of kin. * * * (4) It appears that the covenant has not entered into the consideration of the complainant's purchase. * * * (5) It appears that the original plan has been abandoned without dissent, or the character of the neighborhood has so changed as to defeat the purpose of the covenant, and to thus render its enforcement unreasonable."
In Biltmore Development Co. v. Kohn, 239 Ky. 460, 39 S.W.2d 687, 689, the court dealt with facts similar to ours in the following manner:
"Where an owner of a tract of land subdivides it into building lots and sells parcels thereof to separate grantees, imposing restrictions in accordance with the general plan or scheme for uniform development, such restrictions inure to the benefit of the several grantees and may be enforced by one of the grantees against any other grantee."
[1] [2] The cases appear to be unanimous in supporting the proposition that if a general scheme for building or development *59 is intended by the original grantor, subsequent grantees may bring action against **784 each other to enforce the restrictive covenant. This intent may be gathered from the grantor's acts and attendant circumstances. Constructive or actual notice of the general plan on the part of the grantee is an essential requirement in enforcing the restrictive covenant. See Vogeler v. Alwyn Improvement Corp., 247 N.Y. 131, 159 N.E. 886, 887, which held:
"Before a stranger to a conveyance may assert rights based upon a covenant or restriction, 'there must be found somewhere the clear intent to establish the restriction for the benefit of the party suing or his grantor, of which right the defendant must have either actual or constructive notice.'"
[3] After careful consideration of the cases, our conclusion is that if the general plan has been maintained from its inception, if it has been understood, accepted, relied on, and acted upon by all in interest, it is binding and enforceable on all. It goes with the land, and is equally binding on all purchasers with notice.
This being the rule laid down by the cases it poses two questions for our solution: Was a general scheme intended in the present case? If so, did the defendant have actual or constructive notice thereof?
The question of notice can quickly be disposed of for on page 68 of the defendant's abstract of title the restrictive covenant covering 674 lots, including the defendant's, is clearly set out.
[4] [5] In 66 C.J. p. 1128, § 962, we read:
"A purchaser of land is chargeable with notice of all conditions, restrictions, exceptions, or reservations appearing in his chain of title, or concerning which he is put on inquiry. * * *
"Where a purchaser has notice of existence of restrictions because they appear in the direct chain of title, he is chargeable with knowledge of the purpose for which the restrictions were made."
[6] When the title record shows a restriction against erection of houses for a contract price less than a stated sum, *60 it is sufficient to charge a prospective purchaser with notice of the restriction. Dellaughter v. Hargrove, Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 253. "A purchaser is not only charged with notice of the contents of deeds of his chain of title but, if the same contain anything that would put a prudent man upon inquiry, he is chargeable with notice of whatever an inquiry would reveal. Wilkerson v. Ward, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W. 158." Spencer v. Maverick, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 819, 823.
The restrictions appear in defendant's chain of title - therefore he is chargeable with knowledge of the purpose for which the restrictions were made.
Was a general scheme intended? It is clear that by written restrictions in 95% of the Douglas Company's conveyances, specific contracts, fully understood, accepted, and acted upon by all who purchased, these lots were subjected to a general plan of restriction. There is strong evidence that all of the grantees, including the Hubbard Company, purchased and accepted these lots subject to restrictive covenants which gave rise to conditions that were of a nature to operate as an inducement to purchasers by giving each purchaser the benefit of a general plan. This conclusion is substantiated by the fact that up to the present time both plaintiff and defendant and all others who purchased accepted the restrictions conformed to and relied thereon. This general plan of a strictly residential district, so initiated has never been departed from by any of them. In fact the Hubbard Company, the common grantor of plaintiff and defendant, had printed and circulated a map or plat of the Douglas Park Subdivision on the bottom of which was printed:
"Douglas Park is the cream of the Southeast bench and the most ideal spot in the entire city for a home. This property, for a long time reserved, was finally subdivided and is now building up very rapidly with fine modern homes; over $50,000 worth of residences now under construction. * * * Douglas Park is a high class, restricted residence district, close in, with a magnificent view of the entire city, valley, lake and mountains, and is in the educational center * * *."
*61 In dealing with such inducements to buy the court in the case of Scheuer v. Britt, 218 Ala. 270, 118 So. 658, 660, held:
"In such cases the equitable right to enforce such mutual covenants is rested on the **785 fact that the building scheme forms an inducement to buy, and becomes a part of the consideration. The buyer submits to a burden upon his lot because of the fact that a like burden is imposed on his neighbor's lot, operating to the benefit of both, and carries a mutual burden resting on the seller and the purchaser."
The result of the grantor's acts is apparent. There is a 95% uniformity of the restriction in all deeds and, a map was circulated which stated that this was a restricted residential district. This coupled with the actual development of the tract free from commercial or business buildings is certainly indicia of a neighborhood plan. From such facts it may be inferred that the grantees were induced to buy and placed reliance on these restrictions.
[7] The defendant contends that this evidence is offset by the fact that 55 of the lots were conveyed by deeds containing no restrictions. Just what percentage of the lots of a tract can be conveyed without restrictions in the deed without destroying a general building plan is not settled. Conceivably, one conveyance free of restrictions could destroy the purpose of a general scheme, and in such a case the pursuance of a general scheme could hardly be said to have been within the intent of the original grantor. On the other hand, particular sections of the subdivision may not fit into the general scheme, and conveyance of such sections free of restriction would not necessarily negative the intent to create a general plan as to the remainder of the lots. Thus Velie v. Richardson, 126 Minn. 334, 148 N.W. 286, there were 128 lots in a tract. Ninety of these lots were sold with restrictive covenants; two were sold before the owners decided on the form of a building restriction, but with the understanding that the lots were to be used for residential purposes; two were sold without restrictions; and two more with restrictions different from *62 the rest. The court held that a general building scheme was intended and the fact that a couple of lots were sold without restrictions and two were sold with restrictions differing from the rest did not prove conclusively that a general plan was not intended.
In Strauss v. Ginzberg, 218 Minn. 57, 15 N.W.2d 130, 155 A.L.R. 1000, a building restriction was contained in deeds to all of 410 lots except 29 1/2 lots used as follows: two in the extreme northeast quarter of the addition (on which a filling station was later built), four lots occupied by churches, and twenty-three and one-half lots were used as a public school playground. The court upheld the general plan stating that the fact that certain lots were not restricted may even be strong evidence of an intent to create a general plan. In Leader v. LaFlamme, 111 Me. 242, 88 A. 859, a general scheme was upheld, although two lots did not contain the restrictive covenants; it does not appear how many lots were involved. In Allen v. City of Detroit, 167 Mich. 464, 133 N.W. 317, at page 319, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 890, five out of eleven lots contained express restrictions but parol evidence was admitted to show that the buyers of the other lots were informed of the restriction and were required to submit building plans before being permitted to buy. The court pointed out:
"That a portion of the conveyances do not contain the restrictions will not defeat the same [right of one party to enforce against another]. Although some of the lots may have written restrictions imposed upon them and others not, if the general plan had been maintained from its inception, if it has been understood, accepted, relied on, and acted upon by all in interest, it is binding and enforceable on all inter se."
[8] [9] The intent of the original grantor is the determining factor. The fact that some of the deeds do not contain restrictive covenants may be evidence of an intent not to establish a building scheme but this evidence is not conclusive. The uniformity of the restrictions, reliance by the buyers, actual development of the tract and *63 erection of dwelling houses free from business buildings are all considered in determining the existence of the plan.
[10] The Douglas Company divided the subdivision into building lots and conveyed **786 95% by deeds containing uniform covenants restricting use to residential purposes. It is apparent that there was an intent and design to carry out a general scheme. As for the Hubbard Company, the common grantor of both plaintiff and defendant, the existence of a publicly announced plan of development involving restrictions upon all purchasers, in effect during all the sales by the common grantor, not only reinforces and renders certain the foregoing principles, but also, disposes of the defendant's claim.
[11] Although the authorities are not uniform on the subject (see Annotations, 40 A.L.R. 1523, 10 A.L.R. 612) ordinarily a tax sale does not divest easements charged upon the property sold. 3 Cooley, Taxation, 4th Ed., § 1494.
[12] The better considered cases adhere to the theory that the assessment is the basis of the tax title and only that interest which was properly assessed can be sold. Tintic Undine Mining Co. v. Ercanbrack et al., 93 Utah 561, 74 P.2d 1184. If the person assessed as owner had no title to the easement, certainly the tax sale could not pass title thereto; the property assessed and the property conveyed must be the same. If property rights which are not included in an assessment are sold or extinguished by a tax sale, there would be a taking of property without due process of law. The assessors in this State are required to appraise all taxable property 'at its full cash value.' Sec. 80-5-1, U.C.A.1943. In determining this value no deduction is made for mortgages, liens, rights of dower, and similar interests. But an easement is not a lien, it is rather a servitude imposed upon the land sometimes said to be 'carved out' of the servient estate.
*64 Jackson v. Smith, 153 App.Div. 724, 138 N.Y.S. 654, 656, describes an easement thus:
"An easement is a servitude upon, and differs from an interest in, or a lien upon, the land. It is not a part of, but is so much carved out of the estate in, the land, and is as much a thing apart from that estate as a parcel of the land itself conveyed from it."
[13] It is a known fact that an easement or restrictive building covenant has a definite effect upon the value of the servient estate and thereby changes the value of the dominant estate. Presumably assessors take into account the effect of easements and covenants on value in making their appraisals. See Gowen v. Swain, 90 N.H. 383, 10 A.2d 249; Lodge v. Swampscott, 216 Mass. 260, 103 N.E. 635; Ehren Realty Co. v. Magna Charta Building & Loan Ass'n, 120 N.J.Eq. 136, 184 A. 203. To assess property without regard to a building restriction or an easement would be to assess it without regard to the nature and extent of the property interest which the assessed owner has in the land, in complete disregard of its fair cash value which would be in violation of the statute, Sec. 80-5-1, U.C.A.1943. It is conceded that assessors cannot be compelled to inquire into all details affecting the title to property, but when their attention is called to matters relating to its value they are bound to pay due regard to them. The assessor should have considered this building restriction when assessing the defendant's property and the fact that one assessor testified he acted in ignorance of the existing restrictive covenant thereby failing to correctly assess the servient estate is of no defense to defendant. The law is not founded on mistakes. It must be conclusively presumed in the assessment of the lots that their value was fixed subject to the covenant. If there was no valid assessment there could be no valid sale and defendant would have no title, and a sale would not extinguish anything.
In the case of Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze, 213 N.Y. 9, 106 N.E. 751, 752, L.R.A.1915D, 1115, Ann.Cas.1916C, 636, it was contended as here, that incumbrances and easements *65 were effectually cut off by a tax lien foreclosure and sale. That contention was put at rest by the decision of the court which reads as follows:
"The assessment of the lot described in the judgment did not include the easements appurtenant to the adjoining real property. The assessment of the servient estate was subject to the easements included in the assessments of the dominant estate. As a necessary consequence it has been held that, a foreclosure **787 of tax lien and sale of the premises pursuant to sections 1035-1039 of the greater New York Charter [1908], private easements of light, air and access of adjoining owners over the land sold are not extinguished. If property rights, which are excluded from an assessment, are sold or extinguished by a tax sale, there would be a taking of property without due process of law."
See Poetzsch et al. v. Mayer, 115 Misc. 422, 189 N.Y.S. 695, 696, in which the New York Supreme Court held:
"Tax sales and sales in foreclosure of tax liens invest the purchaser with only that title which the owner of the property had; it cannot divest a party situated as the plaintiff is here from a property right such as the easement is here and which was lawfully acquired prior to the levying of the tax under which the sales were made. To hold otherwise would infringe on the plaintiffs' constitutional rights and deprive them of their property rights without due process of law."
Jackson v. Smith, supra, is an interesting case that has been cited many times with approval. In that case the court held that easements were not extinguished by a tax sale of the burdened premises, notwithstanding such owners were parties to the tax foreclosure suit.
"'One who purchases land at a tax sale must take all easements and incidents attached or pertaining to the land.' Smith v. Mayor, 68 N.Y. 552, 557. And it has recently been decided by this court in the Fourth Department that a tax sale of land burdened by easements, lawfully acquired prior to the levying of the tax under which the sale was made does not extinguish the easements. Blenis v. Utica Knitting Co., 73 Misc. 61, 130 N.Y.S. 740. * * * If the principle contended for by the respondents is sound, the owner of the dominant estate, who pays the taxes upon a valuation which includes the value of his easements, must also, to protect his easements, pay taxes assessed on another's property, although the value of the easements is necessarily excluded from the assessed valuation thereof."
*66 The Oregon Court in the case of Crawford et al. v. Senosky et al., 128 Or. 229, 274 P. 306, 307, dealt with facts and issues identical with those presented here in the following manner:
"It is unnecessary to determine the precise nature of a tax title. It doubtless is in the nature of a new and independent grant from the sovereign authority (Hefner v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 123 U.S. 747, 8 S.Ct. 337, 31 L.Ed. 309); but the assessment is the basis of it. The property assessed and the property conveyed upon the tax sale must be the same. If the assessment is only of the servient estate, only that can be conveyed on a tax sale; and, vice versa, if the conveyance on the tax sale, or on the foreclosure of a tax lien, is of all the estate or interests in the land, freed from servitude as well as liens thereon, then the assessment must be based upon the land as land, regardless of servitude as well as liens. As has been shown, in making the assessment a deduction must be made for easements, whereas none is made for liens and the like interests."
The New Jersey Court in Ehren Realty Co. v. Magna Charta Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark et al., 120 N.J.Eq. 136, 184 A. 203, held:
"Tax sale of servient tenement and foreclosure of certificate of sale does not extinguish right of way appurtenant to adjoining property. * * * When an easement is carved out of one property for the benefit of another, the market value of the servient estate is lessened, and that of the dominant increased, practically by just the value of the easement; the respective tenements, should therefore be assessed accordingly."
The above cases
WOLFE, Justice.
I concur. I have serious doubts, however, if the real reason why an easement is not extinguished by a valid tax procedure is founded on the assessment. It is true that the assessment is the basic step in tax procedure but the really vexatious question in this regard is why valid tax foreclosure proceedings should cleanse the property of 'mortgages, liens, rights of dower and similar interests' and not *69 of easements or building restrictions. We have no trouble respecting mortgage and other liens. They are not interests in land. They are ordinarily contractual rights to resort to land if a debt is not paid. And the reason they are extinguished**789 by valid tax foreclosure sale, at least in this state even though not expressly made inferior by statute to the tax lien, is because of public necessity. Robinson v. Hanson, 75 Utah 30, 282 P. 782. Tax collecting machinery must be workable. Public necessity so dictates. Very few persons would buy property from the county on tax title if they had to buy it subject to mortgages or other liens for the payment of money. Moreover, a lienholder may protect himself by the payment of the taxes and by adding it to the amount owing from his debtor. Not so with easements or restrictions. But when it comes to 'dower and similar interests' we have more difficulty. Dower has been called an interest in land although its enjoyment is contingent, and while contingent has somewhat the nature of a lien-a right to call on the land for a portion contingent on a wife surviving her husband. Certainly a remainder interest after a life tenancy is an interest in land. In some states the tax foreclosure procedure does extinguish dower interests; in others not. Much, of course, depends on the statutes. The matter has given the courts some difficulty. SeeLucas v. Purdy, 142 Iowa 359, 120 N.W. 1063, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 1294, 19 Ann.Cas. 974; Shell v. Duncan, 1889, 31 S.E. 547, 10 S.E. 330, 5 L.R.A. 821, a well considered case with an illuminating concurring and dissenting opinion. Blevins et al. v. Smith, 1891, 104 Mo. 583, 16 S.W. 213, 13 L.R.A. 441, another case with an informative dissent. What gives me pause in the rationale of the court's opinion in this case is that I cannot see any logical basis for differentiating on the one hand between a dower or a remainder interest in land and on the other hand an easement, except that the land taken in by the county at tax sales would not readily get back on the tax rolls and the tax revenue therefrom actually obtained would be decreased if the land was sold subject to dower rights or remainder rights. That is not *70 very often the case where an easement is involved. Only in the rare case of a very burdensome easement would it happen. But 'dower and similar interests in land' can be considered just as much carved out of land as an easement. Therefore, without being dogmatic or too sure of my ground, I am constrained to place my conclusion on the more fundamental and broader ground of public necessity and workability of the tax laws rather than the nature of the encumbrance, except as that affects the salability of the property.
By this I do not mean to imply that even the public necessity of raising revenue to run the government would permit the sale of property under taxation procedure without due process of law. For the argument I am assuming that due process of law, in methods and procedure has been prescribed by the Legislature and that such have been complied with by those charged with the administration of the tax laws. But apparently the publication of delinquent property by correct description before certificate of sale together with the names of the record owners is notice to the world and therefore notice to all persons having an interest therein and therefore due process. In any event what I say regarding the public necessity of cleansing property of some types of incumbrances and not of others to make it saleable presumes due process.
The opinion says: 'It must be conclusively presumed in the assessment of the lots that their value was fixed subject to the covenant.' It is practically impossible for a county assessor to know of all easements, building restrictions and the like which exist in his county. Indeed in this very case the assessor testified that he acted in ignorance of the building restrictions here involved. Land owners themselves are ofttimes, as in this case, so confused as to the existence of such interests in land that they have to go to the courts to get them settled. The conclusive presumption that the assessor considers the effect of all existing easements and like property *71 interests when he fixes the value of a particular lot has little basis in fact, and, I think, should not be indulged in. Such a presumption is not necessary for the determination of this case.
As to the proposition that only the servient estate less the burden of the easement is assessed, I call attention to the following passage appearing in Cooley on Taxation,**790 3d Ed., p. 739; 4th Ed., Sec. 1069, p. 2170, reading: 'In a majority of the states the rule prescribed by the statutes is that lands and other real estate shall be assessed as such, irrespective of the separate estates that individuals may have in them. Under such a practice, he who, for the time being, enjoys the possession of the real estate and the pernancy of the profits may be charged with the tax. The practice, however, has not been universal; in some states, and particularly in some special proceedings, the statutes have required separate interests to be separately assessed. When the whole is assessed as an entirety, provision is usually made under which the respective owners may pay their proportions of the tax, and have their respective interests discharged of the lien.'
In case of a life tenant, the rule is generally according to Cooley on Taxation, 3d Ed., p. 723, that he 'should be assessed as owner during the continuance of the life estate.' It would seem that the measure of the tax against the life tenant is the leviable portion of the full value of the land. We do not have a statute requiring the assessor to separate interests.
While I am in agreement therefore with the result that easements and building restrictions are not extinguished by valid tax foreclosure procedure, I am doubtful as to the reason given for that result. In order to assure myself of the correct basis I would be compelled to make an exploration which would consume much effort and time. After all, the holding in this case rather than the ascertainment of the correct reasons for it is of paramount importance. The reason given in the court's opinion may be as sound and rational as any. But the whole field of taxation of real and *72 personal property is an enormous one with many ramifications. It is ofttimes difficult to make theories accord with the actualities of the taxing process or at least so relate those theories so as to present a logical fabric of the law of real estate taxation.
Illustrative of this, I quote from the opinion of Thomas, J., in the case of Blevins v. Smith, supra, as follows. [104 Mo. 583, 16 S.W. 216]'We will, in the second place, inquire into the general rule in regard to the sale of land for taxes, and the title acquired by the purchaser at such sale. There are in the several states of this Union two methods of listing lands for taxation,-one is to list the lands 'as the summation of all interests;' and the other is to list the interest of the owners of the land as set out in the assessment roll; and much depends on the method of the assessment as to the interest that passes to the purchaser at a tax-sale. Indeed, when the principles underlying the exercise of the taxing power, and the sale of lands for unpaid taxes, are examined, it will be found that the title conveyed at a tax-sale depends almost wholly on the theory upon which the lands is listed and valued for taxation. On this subject Mr. Blackwell, in his work on Tax-Titles (5th Ed., § 954), says: 'When the sale and deed are valid, and have their complete effect, * * * the interest conveyed depends upon the circumstances and the statutes. If a particular interest in the land is separately assessed as such, a sale of that does not pass the whole land, nor will a sale of the land pass such interest. If the land alone is assessed, as the summation of all interests, liens, incumbrances, etc., the general rule is that the deed carries a fee-simple absolute, a new and independent title, the land itself being conveyed; and all prior liens, incumbrances, and interests in, to, or upon the land are extinguished. * * * In those states where the tax is a charge upon the land alone, where no resort, in any event, is contemplated against the owner or his personal estate, and where the proceeding is strictly in rem, the tax-deed will undoubtedly have the effect to destroy all prior interests in the estate, whether vested or contingent, executed or executory, and those in possession, reversion, and remainder. * * * On the other hand, where the law requires the land to be listed in the name of the owner of the fee, or of any other interest in the estate, provides for a personal demand of the tax, and, in case of default, authorizes the seizure of the body or goods of the delinquent in satisfaction of the tax, and in terms, or upon a fair construction of the law, permits a sale of the land only when all other remedies have been exhausted,**791 then the sale and conveyance by the officer pass only the interest of him in whose name it was listed, upon whom the demand *73 was made, who had notice of the proceedings, and who alone can be regarded as legally delinquent. In such case the title is a derivative one, and the tax purchaser can recover in ejectment only such interest as he may prove to have been vested in the defaulter at the time of the assessment.' As we shall see later on, the method of listing lands for taxation and the sale of them for unpaid taxes in Missouri does not come under either of the categories mentioned by Mr. Blackwell, but partakes of the nature of both somewhat. Mr. Cooley, in his work on Taxation (2d Ed., p. 464), on this same subject says: 'The usual method of enforcing the payment of taxes upon property is by putting the property up at public sale. No one questions the right to do this, and no one doubts that the sale, if fair and made in compliance with the law, and after all preliminary steps have been taken, vests a perfect title in the purchaser to the full extent that the statute has declared.''
This quotation contains an oft quoted passage from Blackwell's work on Tax Titles. It appears that the interest which passes to the purchaser at the tax sale depends largely on the method of assessment. In view of that quotation from Blackwell, I take it that the correctness of the thesis of the main opinion depends on the assumption that in this state the tax is levied against the owner of the interest rather than as a charge against the land and that the owner's interest alone is assessed and taxed and sold for his tax indebtedness. In such case, says Mr. Blackwell, 'the title is a derivative one, and the tax purchaser can recover in ejectment only such interest as he may prove to have been vested in the defaulter at the time of the assessment.' But this court has said in Welner v. Stearns, 40 Utah 185, 120 P. 490, 493 Ann.Cas.1914C, 1175, 'Under our statute, as under most of the state statutes of the Union, the tax sale initiates a new title, and has no relation with the previous chain of title', citing Cyc. 1473. And I think this same statement has been made in several other of our opinions. But if such theory is correct it would seem, according to Blackwell, *74 'If a particular interest in the land is assessed as such, a sale of that does not pass the whole land, nor will a sale of the land pass such interest. If the land alone is assessed as a summation of all interests, liens, incumbrances, etc., the general rule is that the deed carries a fee-simple absolute, a new and independent title, the land itself being conveyed; and all prior liens, incumbrances and interests in, to, or upon the land are extinguished. * * *' Now we have our court in at least one case founding its conclusion on the proposition that the tax sale initiates a new title from the sovereign and not one that is derivative which would seem to be a proposition that is at variance with the thesis of the main opinion. I am not sure, however, that in the case of Welner v. Stearns, supra, or any case decided by this court, any real investigation was made as to whether our tax statutes made the tax a charge against the land alone and the proceedings strictly in rem or whether separate interests were assessed and the title received by the tax purchaser therefore derivative or whether our tax statutes present a hybrid system. I can refer to a number of tax sections in our code which seem to make the tax a debt against the individual owning the property and a lien on his property rather than a charge against the property alone.
Our statutes provide (Sec. 80-5-4) that 'The county assessor must, before the 15th day of April of each year, ascertain the names of all taxable inhabitants * * * and must assess such [taxable] property to the person by whom it was owned or claimed, or in whose possessionor control it was, at 12 o'clock m. of the first day of January next preceding, * * *.' (Unless otherwise specified, the italics or emphasis in the quoted parts of the statutes are mine.)
Section 80-5-12 provides that '* * * the property must be assessed to such name [owner or claimant]' and Section 80-5-13 requires that 'when a person is assessed as agent, trustee, bailee, guardian, executor *75 or administrator, his representative designation must be added to his name, * * *.' Here the express language **792 seems to imply that the assessment is fundamentally against a person and not against the property regardless of person.
Likewise, Section 80-5-14, dealing with undistributed or unpartitioned property of deceased persons, may be assessed against their heirs, guardians, executors or administrators or any one of them, and the payment of taxes made by either binds all of the parties in interest for their proportions. The assessment binds persons not the property except as security for its payment.
Also Section 80-5-18 provides that '* * * any person claiming the same [lands already described on the assessment book] and desiring to be assessed therefor may have his name inserted with that of the person to whom such land is assessed.'
When we come to Sec. 80-10-1 we find that every tax has the effect of a judgment against the person and every lien created by this title 'has the force and effect of an execution duly levied against all personal property of the delinquent.'
And Sec. 80-10-3 provides that 'every tax upon real property is a lien against the property assessed; * * * which several liens attach as of the 1st day in January of each year.' Thus by Section 80-10-1 the lien created by Sec. 80-10-3 'has the force and effect of an execution duly levied against all personal property of the delinquent.' Certainly this smacks of an assessment against the person rather than a charge against the realty alone-the tax debt being a lien against the realty of the owner.
*76 Section 6090-6092, Compiled Laws of Utah 1917, provided for personal suit against a tax debtor for the delinquent tax when there was no sale of the property upon which the tax was a lien when said property was once offered for tax sale. These sections did not survive the 1933 revision of the statutes.
Personal suit for taxes by a county treasurer against a tax debtor who removed from one county to another after being assessed on personal property was authorized by Section 6048, Compiled Laws of Utah 1917. This section, likewise, was left out of the 1933 revision of the statutes.
Under our present law, in certain circumstances, personal suit for taxes is authorized against owners or those having care and custody of livestock or honeybees. See Section 80-5-27, U.C.A. 1943.
There are other sections which could be pointed out which support this view. But if this is the theory of our tax code it would seem, according to Blackwell, that the tax is one against the person and the person is assessed and tax titles are derivative and not new titles from the sovereign. And in such case the reasoning of the main opinion would gain support. But until we do determine what the theory of our tax assessment really is, confusion will result. It may be that the tax is one against the person but the procedure to collect it confined to the sale of his property and in that sense a proceeding in rem although Sec. 80-10-3 and some of the other sections would seem to be somewhat against that view.
I have called attention to what appear to me to be inconsistencies in statements in our opinions to point out the danger of seizing on a particular theory to support a current decision without a survey of the whole field. Certainly the habit of seizing on a theory to serve an immediate result, only to find ourselves confronted by a contradictory theory in an earlier or later case when such contradictory theory serves the result in that case, leads to confusion. That is what prompts me to state that I think the pragmatic or functional approach should be used. The two paramount *77 principles which control in the interpretation of statutory tax law where there is room for statutory construction are workability of tax proceeding and public necessity. These should be recognized as the main guides in interpretation rather than laying down underlying theories to support results which theories appear to be contradictory. Because of public necessity, I agree that mortgages and most other liens, including tax liens and most likely dower and some other interests, are extinguished by valid tax foreclosure procedure but not easements.
I call attention, in concluding, to the fact that I have discussed easements in this case because they are analogous to **793 building restrictions but I should add that easements themselves appear to be of two kinds, the negative easement like that for light and air which in effect prohibit the servient tenement owner from building on a part of his land and the affirmative easement which gives the owner of the dominant estate the right to use the other's land in a limited way. At bottom these may be the same because the owner of an easement for light and air may be using it for the transfer of light and air over the other's land instead of for the transfer of himself or his vehicles. But building restrictions appear to be more analogous to the negative than the positive easement. Whatever may be the reasoning which should be employed to support the result in this case, I concur for correct results have been reached.
PRATT, J., not participating.
Utah 1946
HAYES v. GIBBS
110 Utah 54, 169 P.2d 781, 168 A.L.R. 513
57-8-21. Acquisition through tax deed or foreclosure of liens


text:
Q: How can I add directories to a Gradle sourceset by wildcard pattern? I would like to separate various source types into per-module areas without either:

*

*adding a separate Android module project (or build.gradle) for each or

*explicitly adding each module's source directories to appropriate source sets in build

So thus for instance, what I really want to do are things like:
main {
  assets {
    srcDir 'modules/*/assets'
  }
}

and have modules/A/assets, modules/B/assets, etc, automatically added to the list of assets directories.  But that does not work, unfortunately, nor is it clear how to produce/iterate a set of directories from a wildcard pattern.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange