cable" must be complied with or the assessment will be held invalid. State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 478 (33 Atl. Rep. 519; 48 Am. St. Rep. 227). An insufficient description of the property on the assessment roll will invalidate the tax title based thereon. Van Cise v. Carter, 9 S. Dak. 234 (68 N. W. Rep. 539). See opinion for particular descriptions held insufficient. The court say: "Public officers authorized to take land, in which they have no interest, and, without the owner's consent, convey the same to strangers, must substantially pursue the statute from which such authority is derived, and a description thereof in any tax proceeding, sufficiently erroneous to render the exercise of ordinary diligence on the part of the owner ineffectual to prevent a divestment of title, because he is unable to ascertain what was intended by what has been done, should not receive judicial sanction. Tallman v. White, 2 N. Y. 66; Bird v. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 664 (12 Supt. Ct. Rep. 323); Lachman v. Clark, 14 Cal. 131; Curtis v. Board, 22 Wis. 167; Murphy v. Hall, 68 Wis. 202 (31 N. W. Rep. 754)."

Sec. 901.

Assessment of taxes-Omitted propertyErrors in valuation. The omission from the assessment roll of taxable property by the assessing officer, whether arising from inadvertance or design, through a mistake of fact or law will not invalidate his entire assessment. Shattuck v. Smith, 6 N. Dak. 56 (69 N. W. Rep. 5). Citing, Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 547; Merritt v. Ferris, 22 III. 303; Williams v. Inhabitants of School Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. 75 (32 Am. Dec. 243); People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; Van Deventer v. Long Island City, 139 N. Y. 133 (34 N. E. Rep. 775). Where the statutes (Iowa Revision §§ 739, 747, 752, 753) confer upon several officers power to assess lands omitted by the assessor, and after a lapse of twenty years after a tax sale. of land the owner thereof attacks such sale because no valuation was ever placed upon his land at the time of the assessment of the taxes for which it was sold, the absence of such valuation from the assessor's book for that year is not sufficient to overcome the presumption arising from the deed that the other officers did their duty as to the assessment of the land. Lathrop v. Irwin, 96 Ia. 713 (65 N. W. Rep. 972).

When an assessor acting within his jurisdiction, and in good faith, and in the exercise of his honest judgment, assessęs certain property for taxation at less than its actual value, such undervaluation will not invalidate the entire assessment, and where a statute places the duty of assessing a certain kind of property upon the state board of equalization, it is not sufficient to invalidate such assessment to show that the value fixed by such board was less than the actual value in the judgment of the said board, when the record also shows that there are grave doubts as to the liability of the property for taxation, and is silent as to whether or not the board regarded it as taxable. Shattuck v. Smith, 6 N. Dak. 56 (69 N. W. Rep. 5). In the recent case of West Portland Park Ass'n v. Kelly, 29 Ore. 412 (45 Pac. Rep. 901), the supreme court of Oregon say: "Mere errors of the assessor, resulting in inequalities in the valuation of taxable property, will not vitiate a tax. Railroad Co. v. Guenther, 19 Fed. Rep. 395; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Ore. 464 (33 Pac. Rep. 642). But should he from corrupt motives overvalue taxable property, any tax based thereon would be void, and its collection would be enjoined on account of the fraud. Marsh v. Board of Sup'rs 42 Wis. 502; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424. Or, if he adopt a system of valuation designed to operate unequally upon different classes of property, equity will interfere to restrain the operation of such an unconstitutional exercise of power. Cumming v. Bank, 101 U. S. 153; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Atchinson Co., 54 Kan. 781 (39 Pac. Rep. 1039); Andrews v. King Co., 1 Wash. 46 (23 Pac. Rep. 409; 22 Am. St. Rep. 136)."

Sec. 902. Assessment of taxes-Boards of equalization and review. Construing Utah Sess. Laws 1890, p. 52, which provides that the board of equalization shall have power to determine all complaints made in regard to the assessed value of any property, and may change or correct any valuation, either by adding thereto or deducting therefrom, it is held that the word "complaints" as used in this statute is not used in the technical sense in which the word "complaints" is used in the Civil Code, and it is not necessary that a formal allegation or charge in writing should be filed in a case in order to confer

jurisdiction upon the board; and when a person appears before a board of equalization in response to a notice, and is afforded an opportunity to be heard, all objections to the form are waived. Central Pac. R. Co. v. Standing, 13 Utah 488 (45 Pac. Rep. 344). A statute (Mich. Sess. Laws 1893, No. 206, § 30) requiring the board of review to meet on a specified day and continue in session during the day and the day following," is mandatory; and a levy of taxes made against one who is deprived of a hearing by an illegal adjournment of the board is invalid. Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 (66 N. W. Rep. 482).

Sec. 903. Publication of delinquent lists. Where an officer who was required to designate the newspaper in which an order and petition against lands for delinquent taxes are to be published, designates the Muskegon Chronicle as such paper and there are two papers published, known as the "Muskegon Daily Chronicle" and the "Muskegon Weekly Chronicle," a publication in the latter when accepted and acted upon by the officer was held sufficient. Michigan Laws, 1893, Act 206, § 63, applied. Waldron v. Auditor General, 109 Mich. 231 (67 N. W. Rep. 136). In West Virginia in order that lands may be legally returned delinquent, a copy of the delinquent lists must be posted at the front door of the courthouse of the county at least two weeks before the session of the county court at which they are presented for examination. Sommers v. Ward, 41 W. Va. 76 (23 S. E. Rep. 520). Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 182, construed and applied -publication of delinquent list-sufficiency of affidavit of publisher. Bass v. People, 159 Ill. 207 (42 N. E. Rep. 880).

Sec. 904. Lien for taxes. A lien for taxes can only be acquired by a strict compliance with the statutory requirements. Town of New Britain v. Mariners' Sav. Bank, 67 Conn. 528 (35 Atl. Rep. 505). The priority of a lien for taxes over other liens must be determined by the law in force at the time the lien arose. S. Dak. Comp. Laws, §§ 1616, 1617, construed. Iowa Land Co. v. Douglas Co., 8 S. Dak. 491 (67 N. W. Rep. 52). The lien of the state for taxes is not extinguished by a void tax sale of the lands to the state.

Texarkana Water Co. v. State, 62 Ark. 188 (35 S. W. Rep. 788). Where the statute makes taxes a "perpetual fien' upon property the mere delay of the public officers having the collection in charge from enforcing the collection of the taxes, in the absence of any statute giving to such delay the effect of releasing the taxes, will not have the effect to release the same. Iowa Land Co. v. Douglas Co., 8 S. Dak. 491 (67 N. W. Rep. 52). A sale of land for state and county taxes does not divest a lien given for city taxes where the statute makes the liens for both of equal rank. Ogden City v. Hamer, Utah (42 Pac. Rep. 1113). Under Conn. Gen. Stat., § 3890, the lien for taxes assessed against a life tenant extends only to his estate. White v. Portland, 67 Conn. 272 (34 Atl. Rep. 1022). Construing and applying Mill. & V. Tenn. Code, § 625, requiring property to be assessed in the name of the owner and making him personally liable for taxes, it is held that taxes accruing during a life estate are assessable against the owner of it and are liens on that estate alone and not on the fee; and a remainderman who officiously pays taxes assessed to a life tenant cannot be substituted to the state's liens against that estate. Ferguson v. Quinn, 97 Tenn. 46 (36 S. W. Rep. 576; 33 L. R. A. 688). Construing S. Dak. Comp. Laws, §§ 1609, 1612, 1616, 1617, 1620 and 1621, it is held that taxes upon personal property in that state are a lien upon the real property of the owner and the latter may be sold for such taxes. Fuller, J., dissenting. Iowa Land Co. v. Douglas Co., 8 S. D. 491 (67 N. W. Rep. 52). Construing and applying Colo. Gen. Stat., §§ 2818, 2819, it is held that taxes levied against the personal property of an owner subsequent to the execution of an incumbrance on land in favor of a third party are not a lien superior in right to that security. Gifford v. Callaway, 8 Colo. App. 359 (46 Pac. Rep. 626). Citing, State v. Mayor, etc., of Newark, 42 N. J. Law, 38; Miller v. Anderson, 1 S. D. 539 (47 N. W. Rep. 957); Gormley's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 49; Bibbins v. Clark, 90 Iowa, 230 (See Vol. III, §§ 722-726; 57 N. W. Rep 884; 59 N. W. Rep. 290; 29 L. R. A. 278); Cooper v. Corbin, 105 Ill. 224. In construing Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, § 8641, providing that where in any action a tax title is declared invalid the court shall ascertain the amount due the holder

thereof, it is held that although such relief may be granted by the court without being asked for in the pleadings, if an action for possession is brought by the holder of a tax title and a judgment is rendered against him which contains no reservation of such lien in his favor it amounts to an adjudication against him as to the right to have such lien. Millikan v. Werts, 14 Ind. App. 223 (42 N. E. Rep. 820). Pa. Acts Feb. 3, 1824; April 8, 1853; Mar. 23, 1867, construed and applied-lien of taxes upon decedent's real estate-discharge by sale. In re Steen's Estate, 175 Pa. 299 (34 Atl. Rep. 732).

Sec. 905. Lien of municipal or corporation taxesAssessments for improvements. In the recent case of Quimby v. Wood, 19 R. I. 571 (35 Atl. Rep. 149), the supreme court of Rhode Island say: "It is well settled that municipal or corporation taxes are not liens against the property on which they are assessed, unless made so by charter, or unless the corporation is authorized by the legislature to declare them to be liens. 2 Dil. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.), § 821; 2 Desty, Tax'n, p. 743, and cases cited; Heine v. Commissioners, 19 Wall. 655: City of Jefferson v. Whipple, 71 Mo. 519; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 267-272, and cases cited; Ham v. Miller, 20 Ia. 453; Blackw. Tax Titles (4th Ed.), p. 516. Under the caption, Foundation of the Power

to Sell Land,' Mr. Black, in his excellent work on Tax Titles, says: By what power and authority does a public officer assume to seize and sell my land after my neglect or refusal to discharge the taxes upon it? To this we answer, he acts exclusively under statutory authority. The officer is a stranger to the title; he sells that which he does not own; and he can have no right to make any such sale, except in so far as he is constituted the agent of the law for that purpose. The power to assess and levy taxes, and to demand payment, does not carry with it the right to make sale of lands for the purpose of collection, but that right must be expressly given by statute.' Judge Cooley, in his excellent work on Taxation (page 470), says: The power which the state confers to assess and levy taxes does not of itself include a power to sell lands, in enforcing collection, but the power to sell must be expressly given.' Where a statute (Wash. Act Mar. 9, 1893, § 8) makes assess