ADDITIONAL NOTE.

ASSESSMENT.

Where the list was required to be verified by the oath in writing of the tax-payer, and it was not so verified, a sale based on such assessment was held invalid. Davis v. Farnes, 26 Texas, 296.

The assessment and its validity must be shown in order to sustain a tax sale. Brady v. Offutt, 19 La. Ann. 184.

Assessment in name of one who was not and never had been the owner of the property is utterly void, and cannot be made the foundation of a valid sale and conveyance, even by legislative enactment. Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162. Where the State, county, and township taxes are blended in one column, any material excess in one will render the taxes in such column void, and a sale based on such tax invalid. Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12.

And where such column is excessive by just the amount of another tax which should have been stated in a different column, but does not purport to be included in the levy at all, this will not help the defect. Ibid.

An erroneous footing by the board of supervisors of the valuations of the personal property, or an estimate of the aggregate valuation of the real estate, different from that at which it was equalized, will not avoid the tax unless it has a tendency to increase the burden upon the land in question. Ibid. And that the supervisors, in equalizing the valuations of real estate adopted an erroneous footing of the valuations of the real estate made by the supervisor, is immaterial, as the subject of equalization of real estate is wholly within their jurisdiction, and their decision conclusive. Ibid.

Where a part of a city lot belongs to one and a part to another, each part must be assessed to the proper owner, if known. Knox v. Huidekoper, 21 Wisc. 527. The law required the assessor in the assessment roll to set opposite each tract the name of the owner or the word "unknown" if the owner was not known, but the assessor, though informed what part of a certain tract belonged to R. and what to S., assessed the whole to S. It seems that a sale based on such assessment was void. State ex rel. Roe v. Williston, 20 Wisc. 228.

Land owned by partners as joint tenants may be it seems assessed to the partnership, instead of the individuals composing it. Hubbard v. Winsor, 15 Mich. 146. It is sufficient under the Vermont statutes that the list should be in fact sworn to, it is not necessary that a certificate of the oaths having been administered should be annexed to the list. Blodgett v. Holbrook, 39 Vt. 336.

Where a special form of oath was prescribed for the appraisers on years between the general appraisals, and they took an oath in the form prescribed for the years of general appraisals which stated that they had "appraised all real estate," but did not contain the statement of the oath that they should have taken, that they had “appraised all additions and made all deductions required by law," it was held sufficient. Ibid.

"

An entry in a book proved to be the assessments for a township, and coming from the commissioners' office, to the following effect: 'No. 8888; quantity, 1100 acres ; name of warrantee, John Olden; valuation, $1,650," coupled with a resolution of the commissioners fixing the rate of county taxes, and a day for appeals, was held sufficient evidence of an assessment under the act of 1815. Wells v. Smyth, 55 Penn. St. R. 159.

Where a tract had been divided, and part was seated and part unseated, and the whole was assessed together and sold for taxes, although the assessment was irregular, the sale passed a title to the part unseated. Dietrick v. Mason, 57 Penn. St. R. 40.

The want of an assessment in fact is not a mere irregularity, and is not cured by the act of 1815. McReynolds v. Longerberger, 57 Penn. St. R. 13. There must be in the assessment something to identify the land, it will not do to show by parol that the assessment was intended to be applicable to a particular tract, and a "sale without description, circumstance, or name, having any known relation to the land," is bad. Lyman v. Philadelphia, 56 Penn. St. R. 488. The assessment rests upon the written evidence found, or once existing, in the commissioners' office. Ibid.

An assessment made by one assessor is void. Metcalf v. Messenger, 46 Barb. 325. An assessment is not avoided by a failure of the assessor to demand a sworn statement of the person assessed, the provision as to such demand being for the protection of the State, and not of the tax-payer. State v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 4 Nev. 338.

Taking or assessing property in general terms, is taking or assessing the fee, and not a particular interest or estate, and an assessment in general terms of land belonging to the United States is void. Wright v. Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 341. Under the Nevada statute it seems that two contiguous lots owned by the same individual in a city, may be jointly assessed; although the law requires each city lot to be separately assessed. Ibid.

Where the statute allows land to be assessed by its "common designation or name," it seems that the block and number are a sufficient description. Ibid.

In describing a tract which consists of a specific quantity granted by the Mexican government to be selected within the boundaries of a larger tract, if the assessment is as definite as the case will admit, and such as would pass the property in a deed, it is sufficient. People v. Crockett, 33 Cal. 150.

The assessment roll when completed and certified by the assessor to the board of supervisors is the only evidence admissible of the assessor's acts and intentions. People v. S. F. Union, 31 Cal. 132.

Omission to assess property liable will not affect validity of assessment roll, if arising from mistake of law or fact. People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432.

An assessment where there is no dollar mark to the figures showing the valuation is void, but if the dollar mark is prefixed to the aggregate under an appro

priate heading, it is good. Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610; People v. San Francisco Savings Union, 31 Cal. 132; People v. Empire, &c. Company, 33 Cal. 171.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

Where an unauthorized alteration has been made in the assessment roll, but the original roll remains legible, it is valid and in force as though no alteration had been made. State v. Manhattan Company, 4 Nev. 318.

See JUDGMENT.

AUTHENTICATION.

Where it was required by law that the assessor should annex a certificate to the assessment roll, the words "I swear," followed by a statement of the facts, constitute a sufficient certificate though not sworn to. State v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 4 Nev. 338.

AUTHORITY.

The statute provided that in case of the absence, inability, or interest of the county judge, the county clerk should fill his place, and that "the record of the proceeding must show the fact and the cause" of such substitution. The county clerk, acting as judge, signed the tax warrant, and the record did not show the absence, inability, or interest of the judge. It was held by a divided court that this did not invalidate the warrant. Corbin v. Hill, 21 Iowa, 70. Where one has requested a reassessment he cannot object to it on the ground of want of authority of the officers to make it. Burr v. Wilcox, 13 Allen, 269.

CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT.

Omission to give the proper notice to the owner to redeem is an irregularity, and cured by three years' adverse possession under the statute. Striddle v. Saroni, 21 Wisc. 173. The provision for such notice is, it seems, merely directory. Wright v. Sperry, Ibid. 331.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Where legislative acts do not conflict with the constitution they are supreme, and a tax may be constitutionally authorized by the legislature for the fulfilment of a merely moral obligation in favor of an individual. Beals v. Amador Company, 35 Cal. 624.

A tax cannot constitutionally be levied for a private purpose, or for one in which the people from whom it is to be exacted have no interest, but with this limitation the power of the legislature is supreme. Grim v. Weissenberg School District, 57 Penn. St. R. 433.

That the legislature cannot take private property indirectly by declaring that certain facts which are a valid defence to a claim upon his land, shall not be set up by him. See Wright v. Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 341.

An act of the Congress of the United States which requires that the whole land shall be sold in all cases is unconstitutional, Martin v. Snowden, 18 Gratt. 100.

CORPORATION SALE.

The powers of corporations in the sale and conveyance of land for taxes are only such as are expressly given by statute. Knox v. Peterson, 21 Wisc. 247.

CURATIVE LEGISLATION.

An assessment good in substance is the basis of taxation, and the absence of such assessment cannot be remedied by legislation, but irregularities in the assessment may be so remedied. People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; People v. San Francisco Savings Union, 31 Cal. 132.

When the original tax was levied without any authority of law, no subsequent legislation can make it a legal demand, but irregularities may be cured. Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218.

A statute providing that " All levies of taxes heretofore made by any incorporated city in this State, whether the assessments have been made by the city assessor or copied from the assessments for State and county revenue be, and the same are hereby, legalized," was held constitutional, and to cure such irregularities as the basing the assessment upon the valuation of the wrong year, and the failure of the assessor to return his lists in due time. Musselman v. Logansport, 29 Ind. 533.

A tax levied without authority may be made valid by legislation even after suit brought to recover the tax. Grim v. Weissenberg School District, 57 Penn. St. R. 433. See also Wilson v. Buckman, 13 Minn. 441; State v. Reed, 2 Vroom, 133; Tucker v. Justices, 34 Geo. 370.

DATE.

Where a certificate appended to a rate bill is dated prior to the appointment of the officer making the certificate, and thus is evidently a clerical error, it will not invalidate the instrument. Goodwin v. Perkins, 39 Vt. 598.

DEED.

The deed must follow the form prescribed by statute, thus where the deed did not state that the person depositing the certificate of sale was the purchaser or his assignee, as was contemplated in the form prescribed by Stat. of 1859, it was held void. Krueger v. Knab, 22 Wisc. 429.

So where the name of the purchaser was not stated as required by form prescribed by Stat. of 1852, North v. Wendell, ibid.

And it is sufficient if the recitals follow the form, no greater fulness can be required. Knox v. Huidekoper, 21 Wisc. 527.

The effect of a tax deed properly executed, depends upon the law at the time of the sale. Woodman v. Clapp, 21 Wisc. 350.

Where the law requires the deed to be executed by the clerk of the board of supervisors, but the statutes give the title of the office in various ways, the description of the office in any of those ways in the attestation clause is sufficient to identify the officer and meet the requirements of the law. Knox v. Huidekoper, 21 Wisc. 527.

Where lots are described in certificate and deed, as in "A.'s addition," and

there are two additions known as A.'s addition " and " A.'s second addition," and