475 (W.D.Pa.1958), aff'd, 265 F.2d 196 (3d Cir.1959). The current owner’s name would be used “only for the purpose of description.” F.H. Rockwell & Co. v. Warren County, et al., 228 Pa. 430, 77 A. 665, 665-666 (1910). As explained by this Court in 1841, [T]he land itself, and not the owner of it, is debtor for the public charge; and it is therefore immaterial, at the moment of sale, what may be the state of the ownership, or how many derivative interests may have been carved out of it. With these the public has no concern. They are sold with the land, just as a remainder would be sold with the particular estate. Strauch v. Shoemaker, 1 Watts & Serg. 166, 175 (Pa.1841) (quotation marks omitted); see also Bannard v. New York State Natural Gas Corp., 448 Pa. 239, 293 A.2d 41, 49 (1972) (<HOLDING>). As was true for seated land, this Court
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 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 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 holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties 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