opinion: PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO v. PALO SECO FRUIT CO. et al.
  No. 3870.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  July 9, 1943.
  William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (Manuel Rodriguez Ramos, Acting Atty. Gen. of Puerto Rico, of counsel), for appellant.
  Herbert L. Barrett, of Boston, Mass., and L. E. Dubon, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for Palo Seco Fruit Co.
  Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
  Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
  WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.
  During October, 1941, the United States Government by condemnation proceedings obtained title to and possession -of the appellee’s land in Puerto Rico. The question raised by this appeal is whether the insular government is entitled to receive out of the money deposited in the court below as compensation for this land the full amount of the property taxes for the fiscal year current when the land was taken. The court below ordered that the insular government was entitled to receive only half of the property tastes for the fiscal year current at. the time of taking and thereupon the People of Puerto Rico took this appeal to us under § 128 of the Judicial Code. 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.
  In People of Puerto Rico v. United’. States, 1 Cir., 131 F.2d 151, decided by-this court on November 6, 1942, we held,, after analyzing the applicable Puerto Rican statutes, that no present, existing lien for property taxes for any fiscal year arose prior to the beginning of that fiscal year, that is on July 1, so that when property was condemned and taken by the United States before July 1 of a calendar year-but after January 15 of that year (the date when taxes for the ensuing fiscal year-are assessed) the funds deposited in court, as compensation are not to be charged with the payment of any part of the property taxes for the fiscal year following. In that case we did not consider the question presented in this one, that is, whether,, when property is condemned and taken after the' beginning of a fiscal year but during the first half of it, there is then a. present, existing lien for the whole amount of the property taxes for the then current fiscal year, or whether there is such a lien-only for the first half of such taxes.
  The district court held that since property taxes fall due in two equal installments, the first at the beginning of the fiscal year and the second at the beginning-of the second half of that year, the lien to secure the payment of the tax arises for the first installment on July 1, and for-the second installment on the first day of' January following. We do not agree.
  Section 315 of the Political Code provides, so far as here material, that: “The tax that is assessed for the current fiscal year * * * against each piece or parcel of real property * * * shall constitute the first lien thereon * * But neither it, nor any other Puerto Rican statute, specifically provides when this lien shall arise, and, as we noted in our previous opinion referred to above, the-Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has not de-'-cided that question. All that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has decided is that an owner’s personal responsibility for the payment of real property taxes arises on the date of assessment on January 15, and that this personal responsibility persists even though before the date when the first installment of the tax falls due on July 1, the property has been condemned and taken for a public purpose. Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico v. Bonet, 54 D.P.R. 536 (Spanish edition); Roig v. Bonet, 54 D.P.R. 649 (Spanish edition).
  Considering the Puerto Rican Statutes (Political Code of Puerto Rico § 285 et seq.), it seems evident that but one tax is assessed for each fiscal year, not separate taxes, equal in amount, for each half of a fiscal year. Section 330 of the Political Code, which provides that “The taxes imposed by section 285 of this Title shall be payable semi-annually in advance upon the first day of July and January of each year,” does not seem to us to militate against this view because it only provides that the whole tax shall not fall due at once but shall be payable in two equal installments. In view of this and of the provision in section 315, the only section bearing upon the issue before us, that the tax for the current fiscal year on property shall constitute the first lien upon it, we conclude that the Puerto Rican legislature must have intended that the lien for property taxes arises for the full amount of the tax assessed for a fiscal year when the fiscal year begins on July 1, and so that the court below was in error in holding that during the first half of a fiscal year the lien was only for the first half of the taxes assessed.
  The court below in its order said (although it did not base its order on this ground) that “There is really very little equity in exacting a property tax from a tax payer after he had been deprived of his property”, and that under the power conferred by the last paragraph of 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a, which gives it authority to make such orders in respect to encumbrances, liens, taxes, etc., if any, “as shall be just and equitable”, it was disposed to the view that it “might make an order in respect to encumbrances or liens which would require the payment only of the taxes accrued and payable up to the time of taking.”
  We do not here feel called upon to decide the scope of the power conferred by the section of the Code quoted above. But as a caveat ■ we feel that we should advert to the constitutional question which would arise under the due process clause if a court of equity should undertake to destroy a lien without compensation to the lienor. Furthermore, but also without deciding the point, we feel • that it would be hard to support a conclusion that it would be inequitable to enforce a lien for taxes for which the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has said the owner is personally liable, and to secure which the legislature has seen fit, as we construe the applicable statute, to give a lien.
  The order of the District Court is vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama