With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Heft, 65 Pa. at 516; see also Hutchinson, 49 A. 312; Williston, 9 Pa. at 39; McCoy, 7 Watts & Serg. at 390. As ownership of unseated land was not easily ascertainable, the County Commissioners were not tasked with searching deed records to determine the present ownership of unseated land. See Rockwell, 77 A. at 666; Stoetzel, 105 Pa. at 567. Next, we reject the Keller Heirs’ claim that the reference to the “land surveyed to Ralph Smith” in the 1936 Deed from the Treasurer to the County Commissioners indicated that the deed was limited to the surface estate. Instead, we recognize that unseated land was assessed and taxed in the name of the Warrant, and any reference to the presumed-current owner, such as Ralph Smith, was merely used for descriptive purposes. See Bannard, 293 A.2d at 49 (<HOLDING>); Rockwell, 77 A. at 666; Strauch, 1 Watts &

A: holding that personal judgment against the property owner was erroneous as there is no pretense either in allegation or proof of any privity between the owner and the subcontractors or of any promise by the former to pay the latter from which could result personal liability
B: holding the fact that an exempt owner who acquired legal title after date when liability for current taxes had accrued was the equitable owner did not make the exemption applicable
C: holding that it is immaterial that the name of the owner as given in the assessment is inaccurate since no personal liability is involved the land not the owner is looked to for payment of delinquent taxes
D: holding it is well established that a possessory hen is lost upon delivery of the repaired vehicle to the owner where there is no fraud involved
C.