Gribble v. Livermore, Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, §

ance of the order granting a new trial. 64 Minn. 396 (67 N. W. Rep. 213). 7682, construed and applied-action to collect delinquent taxes necessary parties. Hilton v. Smith, 134 Mo. 499 (33 S. W. Rep. 464). Mich. Sess. Laws 1893, Act 206, § 63, 66, construed and applied-publication of order and petition against lands for delinquent taxes. Waldron v. Auditor General, 109 Mich. 231 (67 N. W. Rep. 136). Mich. Sess. Laws 1893, No. 206, applied-filing objections to tax lien-amendment. Auditor General v. Chandler, 108 Mich. 569 (66 N. W. Rep. 482).

Sec. 920. Judicial proceedings to confirm and enforce tax titles. Where, in an action of ejectment by the holder of a tax deed the court makes a general finding establishing the validity of his title, it is not necessary for the finding to specifically negative an allegation by the defendant that the taxes were paid before the sale of the property. Cooper

v. Miller, 113 Cal. 238 (45 Pac. Rep. 325). An action to confirm a tax sale under Ind. Rev. Stat. 1894, § 8640, cannot be maintained until the expiration of the time given for redemption which, in case the lands are those of an insane person, is two years after the expiration of such disability. Wagner v. Stewart, 143 Ind. 78 (42 N. E. Rep. 469). Under the provisions of Md. Code, Art. 81, § 52, the final ratification of a tax collector's sale by the circuit court is prima facie evidence of the regularity of the antecedent proceedings, but it has no greater or other efficacy. It seems merely to relieve the purchaser of the onus of proof, and to cast the burden of showing the illegality of the proceedings upon the party resisting the sale. Richardson v. Simpson, 82 Md. 155 (33 Atl. Rep. 457). Sand. & H. Ark. Dig., § 627–638, construed and applied-confirmation of title under a sale by the state of lands forfeited for taxes-notice-effect of decree. Martin v. Hawkins, 62 Ark. 398 (35 S. W. Rep. 1104).

Sec. 921. Collection of taxes by sale of propertyStatute of limitations. The right of the state to enforce the collection of taxes by a sale of property is not "an action upon a liability created by statute" within the meaning of S.

Dak. Comp. Laws, § 4850, so as to be barred in six years. Iowa Land Co. v. Douglas Co., 8 S. Dak. 491 (67 N. W. Rep. 52). The court say: "A tax is not a 'debt' in the ordinary sense in which that term is used, but is a charge or burden imposed upon property for the benefit of the public. It is levied upon the authority of the state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, for governmental purposes, or for some object connected therewith. Hence the statute of limitations has no application to taxes levied under the authority of the state, and does not run against them. Even in some of those states where taxes are collected by action, the action is regarded as one for enforcing a public right, and the courts hold that the statute of limitations will not run against it. Black, Tax Titles, § 164; Greenwood v. Town of La Salle, 137 Ill. 225 (26 N. E. Rep. 1089). In this state the payment of taxes is enforced by distress and sale of the personal property, or sale of the real property, and no action in the courts is provided for or required. The proceeding is summary and statutory, and in no sense an action invoking the exercise of the judicial power of a court. Hence proceedings for the enforcement of the payment of taxes in this state do not come within the provisions of our statute of limitations."

Sec. 922. Statute of limitations and tax titles. The holder of a tax title who fails to comply with the statutory requirements as to service of notice of the expiration of the time given for redemption cannot claim the benefit of the statute of limitations for the protection of tax titles. Ia. Code, §§ 894, 902, applied. Shelly v. Smith, 97 Ia. 259 (66 N. W. Rep. 172). In Louisiana it is held that the want of notice of a tax sale, required by law, cannot be cured by prescription. Johnson v. Martinez, 48 La. 52 (18 So. Rep. 909). The protection of the statute of limitations given by Miss. Act 1888, p. 40, § 4, to the purchasers of land forfeited to the state for taxes extends only to so much of the land as is subjected to actual possession. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Burford, 73 Miss. 494 (19 So. Rep. 584). Applying 2 Wag. Mo. Stat., ch. 118, which requires a purchaser at a tax sale to take and record his deed within two years after the expiration of the time allowed for redemption, it is held that

the statute of limitations begins to run as to an action on such deed only from its date, and not from the first day on which it could have been demanded. Taft v. Mc Cullock, 135 Mo. 588 (37 S. W. Rep. 499). Under S. & B. Ann. Wis. Stat., § 1210h, an action to set aside a tax sale cannot be maintained after the expiration of a year from the date of the sale except where there is a want of authority, ab initio, of the taxing officers to put the taxing power in motion, as where property is exempt from taxation, or where the property taxed is without the taxing district. Pratt v. City of Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 658 (68 N. W. Rep. 392). A statute (Ia. Code, § 902) limiting actions to recover property sold for taxes cannot be invoked to protect a tax title acquired by one owning the property as a tenant in common with others until the refusal of the cotenants to contribute to the payment of the necessary expenses incurred to obtain the tax title is shown. The failure of part of the owners in common of land for eighteen years to pay their portion of the taxes due thereon was held insufficient to perfect a tax title acquired by another cotenant, no demand having been made upon them for such payment and they having no knowledge of their ownership of such land. Phillips v. Wilmarth, 98 Ia. 32 (66 N. W. Rep. 1053). Particular defective tax title held to be cured by the statute of limitations. Michel v. Stream, 48 La. 341 (19 So. Rep.

215).

Sec. 923. Miscellaneous notes. In the absence of a statute to that effect a county is not liable to the landowner for the wrongful acts of its officers in assessing untaxable property, levying an illegal tax, and selling the property for failure to pay the same. Board of Com'rs v. Ball, 22 Colo. 125 (43 Pac. Rep. 1000). A tax sale relieves the owner of the land from liability for all taxes due at the time of the sale, whether included in it or not. Phillips v. Wilmarth, 98 Ia. 32 (66 N. W. Rep. 1053). A decedent's estate is liable for taxes on his land due at the time of his death, and it is not necessary to file a claim therefor. Ia. Acts 20th Gen. Assem., ch. 194, applied. Findley v. Taylor, 97 Ia. 420 (66 N. W. Rep. 744). As to the validity of tax titles under the laws of

Louisiana see Wickoff's Heirs v. Miller, 48 La. 475 (19 So. Rep. 478); West v. Negrotto, 48 La. 922 (19 So. Rep. 819); Bilgery v. Land Trust, 48 La. 890 (19 So. Rep. 920); Hoyle v. Southern Athletic Club, 48 La. 900 (19 So. Rep. 924); Hoyle v. Southern Athletic Club, 48 La. 879 (19 So. Rep. 937); Talle v. DeMonasterio, 48 La. 1232 (20 So. Rep. 687).

Sec. 924.

Construction of miscellaneous statutes.

Manfs. Ark. Dig., §§ 5763, 5769, applied-clerk's record as evidence of the amount of taxes, penalty and costs for which land was sold. Salinger v. Gunn, 61 Ark. 414 (33 S. W. Rep. 959). Ga. Code 1868, §§ 869, 872, 875, applied-tax execution against wild land. Waycross Lum. Co. v. Burbage, 97 Ga. 611 (25 S. E. Rep. 916). The charge imposed by Ia. Acts 25th Gen. Assem. ch. 62, § 1, for the privilege of selling intoxicating liquors is not a tax, although the statute makes it a lien upon all property "used or connected with the business," and this lien has no priority over a mortgage existing on the property at the time it attaches. Smith v. Skow, 97 Ia. 640 (66 N. W. Rep. 893). Applying Ia. Code, § 888, providing that a "certificate of purchase shall be assignable by endorsement," it is held that the possession of such certificate indorsed with the name of the person to whom it was issued, is prima facie evidence of ownership. American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Crooks, 97 Ia. 244 (66 N. W. Rep. 168). La. Const. 1879, Art. 210; Act 1874, No. 105, § 5; Civ. Cod, Art. 3543; Rev. Stat., § 2809, applied-tax adjudications-notice-prescription. Johnson v. Martinez, 48 La. 52 (18 So. Rep. 909). The collateral inheritance tax statute of Maine (Pub. Laws 1893, ch. 146) applies only to the estates of decedents who die after it took effect. In re Collateral Inheritance Tax, 88 Me. 587 (34 Atl. Rep. 530). Md. Acts 1896, ch. 120, §§ 146a-146f, construed and applied-taxation of mortgages. Faust v. Twenty-third German Bldg. Ass'n, 84 Md. 186 (35 Atl. Rep. 890). Miss. Code, § 561, ch. 10, construed and applied-purchase by state-subsequent sale. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Burford, 73 Miss. 494 (19 So. Rep. 584). Tenn. Acts 1893, ch. 89; Acts 1893, ch. 174, construed and appliedcollateral inheritance tax. Bailey v. Drane, 96 Tenn. 16 (33

S. W. Rep. 573). Utah Sess. Laws 1892, p. 131, § 129, construed-sale of land for school taxes. Ogden City v. Hamer, Utah, (42 Pac. Rep. 1113).

TENANTS IN COMMON.

Sec. 925.

EPITOME OF CASES.

Creation of an estate in common-Con

Tindell v.
Where a

veyance by cotenant. A married woman may be made a tenant in common of lands with her husband by a conveyance to her by his cotenant of the latter's interest. Tindell, Tenn. (37 S. W. Rep. 1105). tenant of wild prairie land grants permission to another to enclose and pasture a part of the same they do not thereby become tenants in common of the grass. Gilland v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., Wyo. (43 Pac. Rep. 508). See opinion for interesting discussion of this subject. One of several cotenants of an oyster bed cannot as against his cotenants give his lessee an exclusive right to take oysters therefrom. Mott v. Underwood, 148 N. Y. 463 (42 N. E. Rep. 1048; 51 Am. St. Rep. 711; 32 L. R. A. 270). A mortgage by one cotenant purporting to embrace the whole estate is good as to his interest. Wortman v. Vorhies, 14 Wash. 152 (44 Pac. Rep. 129). Where one holding a mortgage upon the undivided interest of one of two tenants in common to secure his individual debt subsequently takes a mortgage from them both to secure their joint debt, and then the individual mortgagor who is supposed to be insolvent conveys to such mortgagee his individual interest in consideration of a release of his individual mortgage and such mortgagee sells the same to another he must apply the surplus realized above the amount due on the individual mortgage, toward the payment of the joint mortgage debt. Porter v. Muller, 112 Cal. 355 (44 Pac. Rep. 729).

Sec. 926. Trust relations- Buying in titles, etc. Where one of two cotenants, after obtaining a contract from