ments for certain public improvements a lien on property the same as taxes, and the statute (Wash. Act March 15, 1893, § 79) provides that the lien of all taxes "shall have priority to and shall be fully paid and satisfied before any recognizance, mortgage, judgment, debt, obligation or responsibility to or with which said real estate may become charged or liable," it is held that the lien of assessments made for such improvements is superior to the lien of a mortgage given by the property owner prior to the levy of the assessment. City of Seattle v. Hill, 14 Wash. 487 (45 Pac. Rep. 17; 35 L. R. A. 372). Land Co. v. Newman, This case is followed and Upham, 93 Wis. 455 (67 Sec. 906. Discharge of tax lien by payment of the amount demanded by the collecting officer-Enjoining sale upon tender of taxes due. Where the landowner applies in good faith to the proper officer to pay his taxes, and receives a statement and pays accordingly, and afterwards the land is returned and sold for taxes in arrear, when such statement was furnished and not included by the negligence, fault, or mistake of the officer, the title of the taxpayer will not be divested by the sale. Bray & Choate 92 Wis. 271 (65 N. W. Rep. 494). approved in the case of Edwards v. N. W. Rep. 728), in which it is held that the rule has no application where the officer applied to is not the one authorized to receive the tax. Where one has tendered the amount of tax due upon his property as computed upon its true valuation fixed by the board of equalization, he may enjoin a sale thereof to collect excessive taxes based upon an erroneous valuation appearing on the tax duplicate. Dakota Loan & T. Co. v. Codington Co., 9 S. Dak. 159 (68 N. W. Rep. 314). Construing and applying Miss. Code, § 3811, providing that "after the 15th day of January the tax collector shall advertise all land in his county on which taxes have not been paid, * * * for sale at the door of the courthouse of his county on the first Monday of March following," which advertisement shall be published in a newspaper for three weeks, it is held that the collector may proceed on January 16th, to make such advertisement, and an owner of land cannot subsequently, by tendering the amount of taxes due from him enjoin the sale of his land for the penalty assessed by the statute ‘against delinquent taxpayers, although it is alleged that the collector knew that the taxes would be paid on January 16th. Miller v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 74 Miss. 110 (20 So. Rep. 875). Sec. 907. Tax sales. A tax sale may be made of a segregated portion of an operating railroad. Purifoy v. Lamar, 112 Ala. 123 (20 So. Rep. 975). In Arkansas it is held that a sale of an entire block of lots, en masse, is void. Salinger v. Gunn, 61 Ark. 414 (33 S. W. Rep. 959). A statute (N. Dak. Laws 1890, ch. 132, § 70) which directs that the entire tract of land be sold to the highest bidder, for the taxes delinquent thereon, is not unconstitutional because no provision is made for the sale of any fractional part thereof. Shattuck v. Smith, 6 N. Dak. 56 (69 N. W. Rep. 5). A purchase from one purchasing at a tax sale, by a deputy of the officer making the sale is not invalid. Mixon v. Clevenger, 74 Miss. 67 (20 So. Rep. 148). Mansf. Ark. Dig., § 4245, applied-sale of land as a city lot. Texarkana Water Co. v. State, 62 Ark. 188 (35 S. W. Rep. 788). Under West Virginia Code, ch. 31, § 6, a tax sale must be advertised to take place, and must be made, at the door of the court house. Sommers v. Ward, 41 W. Va. 76 (23 S. E. Rep. 520). A tax sale of property assessed to an owner unknown is not invalidated by a failure of the tax collector to append to his docket an oath to the effect that he has made "diligent search for personal property against whom the taxes are respectively assessed," as required by Ala. Code, 1886, § 567. Cary v. Holmes, 109 Ala. 217 (19 So. Rep. 723). North Carolina Laws 1895, ch. 119, § 51, applied-effect of failure of officer to exhaust personal property before selling land. Stanly v. Baird, 118 N. C. 75 (24 S. E. Rep. 12). Sec. 908. Notice of tax sale-Necessity and sufficiency of Proof of publication. The notice required by law is essential to the validity of a tax title. Johnson v. Martinez, 48 La. 52 (18 So. Rep. 909); Baumgardner v. Fowler, 82 Md. 631 (34 Atl. Rep. 537). It is the duty of the county treasurer to select the paper in which to publish the notice of tax sale required by S. Dak. Laws, 1891, ch. 14, § 104. Dewell v. Board of Com'rs, 8 S. Dak. 452 (66 N. W. Rep. 1079). Under the statutes of North Carolina the failure of the sheriff to give the land owner notice of the sale by mail is a mere irregularity which does not affect the title of the purchaser. Sanders v. Earp, 118 N. C. 275 (24 S. E. Rep. 8). Construing and applying a statute (La. Acts, 1880, No. 77, § 35; Acts 1882, No. 96, § 50) requiring notice to be given by mail to a delinquent tax payer, it is held that where lands were assessed in the name of "Est. of J. M. H.," a notice mailed to that address was insufficient to sustain a tax sale based thereon it not being shown that diligent effort was made to ascertain who were the heirs of such estate, or that they actually received the notice so mailed. Hoyle v. Southern Athletic Club, 48 La. 879 (19 So. Rep. 937). La. Stat., Art. 210; Acts 1888, No. 85, § 40, applied-necessity and sufficiency of notice. Hodding v. New Orleans, 48 La. 982 (20 So. Rep. 199). The description of the premises to be sold given in the notice must be such that the exact land to be sold can be determined from it. Richardson v. Simpson, 82 Md. 155 (33 Atl. Rep. 457). Construing and applying Kansas City Charter, Art. 5, § 67, which provides that a description in a notice of sale is sufficient if the land can be identified or located, it is held that a notice otherwise proper is not invalid because it does not state the city or county in which the property described is located, where it refers to the land tax book of the city, in which such facts are shown; and construing § 39 of the same article, providing the manner of publication of the notice of a tax sale and how such publication should be proved and certified, it is held that the method prescribed by the statute must be followed and where the certificate of publication is insufficient it cannot be supplemented by other evidence. Comfort v. Ballingal, 134 Mo. 281 (35 S. W. Rep. 609). The court say: "It has been held that copies of newspapers in which such notices were published are not sufficient evidence, unless accompanied by the affidavit of the printer or publisher of the paper. Luffborough v. Parker, 16 Serg. & R. 351; Black, Tax Titles (2 Ed.), § 214. 'Where the statute itself appoints the evidence by which the fact of. due publication of the notice shall be proved, and directs how it shall be made, and how recorded or preserved, such preap pointed evidence is, as a rule, exclusive, and the lack of it cannot be supplied by proof or by any other evidence.' Black, Tax Titles, § 214; Martin v. Barbour, 140 U. S. 634 (11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944); Iverslie v. Spaulding, 32 Wis. 394; Martin v. Allard, 55 Ark. 218 (17 S. W. Rep. 878).” Sec. 909. Who may purchase at a tax sale. A public officer cannot make a valid tax sale to a firm of which he is a member. Burns v. Edwards, 163 Ill. 494 (45 N. E. Rep. 113). A lessee who has agreed in his lease to redeem the premises from a prior tax sale cannot purchase such tax title and assert it against his landlord. Lyebrook v. Hall, 73 Miss. 509 (19 So. Rep. 348). One who has accepted a devise to him for life following the term of another life tenant cannot, during the existence of the preceding life estate, purchase the property at a tax sale and assert such tax title against a remainderman. Defreese v. Lake, 109 Mich. 415 (67 N. W. Rep. 505; 32 L. R. A. 744). One who is under any legal or moral obligation to pay taxes on land cannot, by neglecting to pay the same, and allowing the land to be sold in consequence of such neglect, add to or strengthen his title, either by purchasing at the sale himself, or suffer a stranger to buy and then purchase from him. Such a purchase merely operates as a payment of taxes, and a redemption of land for the years for which it is sold. State v. Eddy, 41 W. Va. 95 (23 S. E. Rep. 529). An owner of a life estate in land cannot, during the continuance of such estate, acquire an adverse title to the real estate as against the owners of the reversion by purchasing the same at a sale thereof, made for delinquent taxes, which it was his duty to pay. Menger v. Carruthers, 3 Kan. App. 75 (44 Pac. Rep. 1096). One who guarantees the payment of a note and mortgage cannot obtain a lien upon the mortgaged premises, as against the holder of the note and mortgage, by purchasing the real estate at a tax sale. Howard Inv. Co. v. Benton Land Co., 5 Kan. App. 734 (46 Pac. Rep. 989). A mortgagor cannot, as against the mortgagee, acquire a tax title to the mortgaged premises through a breach of his own covenant to pay the taxes; and in that respect his grantee occupies no better position nor will such a grantee be permitted to perfect an inchoate tax title held by him at the time he acquired title from the mortgagor. Washington Loan & T Co. v. McKenzie, 64 Minn. 273 (66 N. W. Rep. 976). An owner of the surface estate in lands may purchase the whole estate therein at a tax sale of the same made for taxes which were assessed before the severance of the title to the surface from that to the minerals and for the payment of which he was not personally liable. Powell v. Lantzy, 173 Pa. 543 (34 Atl. Rep. 450). Lands which remain unsold cannot be purchased by the county under Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat., § 3888, unless they are offered for sale to private bidders from day to day until the sale is concluded. Charlton v. Toomey, (43 Pac. Rep. 454); Colo. Colo. App. Charlton v. Kelly, App. Wash. Laws, 1883, p. 150, § 9, applied-city charter of Whatcom-power of such city to purchase at tax sale. Potter v. Black, 15 Wash.186 (45 Pac. Rep. 787). S. & B. Ann. Wis. Stat., § 1143; Laws 1881, ch. 268, construed and applied-validity of purchase by county treasurer. Gilbert v. Dutruit, 91 Wis. 661 (65 N. W. Rep. 511). Sec. 910. Title and rights of a purchaser at a tax sale. A purchaser at a tax sale acquires only such title as the delinquent had and he holds the land subject to liens having priority over the tax for which it was sold. Cardwell v. Crumley, Tenn. (35 S. W. Rep. 767). Where a purchaser at a tax sale complies with his bid and is, under the statute (19 S. C. Stat. at Large, p. 863, § 2), entitled to a deed he may compel its execution to him by a mandamus, although subsequent to the sale a mortgagee of the premises paid the delinquent taxes to the officer. Gary, J., dissenting. State ex rel. Harley v. Lancaster, 46 S. C. 282 (24 S. E. Rep. 198). In Indiana the purchaser has no right to possession until the expiration of the time given for redemption. Wagner v. Stewart, 143 Ind. 78 (42 N. E. Rep. 469). The holder of a tax deed is not precluded from enforcing a lien for taxes paid by him against the owners of the reversionary interest in the lands on account of a prior judgment to quiet title rendered in his favor against the life tenant, it not appearing on what grounds that action was based. Watson v. Lecklider, 147 Ind. 395 (45 N. E. Rep. 72). |