S. Dak. 25 (71 N. W. Rep. 317). In Tennessee it is held that taxes on land are a personal debt of the person whose duty it is to pay them and that an assessment against a life tenant gives only a lien upon the life estate, and if this estate terminates before the payment of taxes or final decree for their enforcement, the lien and taxes are lost. State v. Campbell, Tenn. (41 S. W. Rep. 937). But under Mill. & V. Tenn. Code, § 806, when land is sold under a decree of foreclosure, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the amount of taxes which are a lien thereon, and provide for their payment out of the proceeds of the sale without reference to whether they were assessed before or after the mortgage lien attached. Dunn v. Dunn, 99 Tenn. 598 (42 S. W. Rep. 259). Applying Va. Code, § 674, it is held that § 636, limiting liens for taxes generally to a period of five years, does not affect the lien of the city of Richmond on real estate for taxes, given it by the provisions of its charter. Powell's Ex'r v. City of Richmond, 94 Va. 79 (26 S. E. Rep. 389). Sec. 904. Publication of delinquent lists-Notice of tax sale. Statutes requiring the publication of notices affecting the assessment or sale of property for taxes, will be construed to require their publication in the English lauguage, Turner v. Hutchinson, 113 Mich. 245 (71 N. W. Rep. 514). Cal. Pol. Code, § 3764, construed and applied-contents of delinquent list, California Loan & T. Co. v. Weis, 118 Cal. 489 (50 Pac. Rep. 697). A recital in a tax deed that the delinquent list published gave "such a condensed description of the property that it might be easily known," does not on its face show a noncompliance with Cal. Pol. Code, §§ 3760, 3764, 3765. Rollins v. Woodman, 117 Cal. 516 (49 Pac. Rep. 455). Cal. Pol. Code, §§ 3764, 3768, 3797, 3800; Stat. 1891, p. 449, construed and applied-date on which tax collector makes his final report and turns over delinquent list. California Loan & T. Co. v. Weis, 118 Cal. 489 (50 Pac. Rep. 697). In order for the notice of a tax sale to be sufficient under Mills' Colo. Stat., § 3834, it must not only appear that it was published in a proper newspaper for the requisite time, but the affidavit of publication must show "that copies of each num ber of said paper in which said notice and list were published, were delivered by carriers or transmitted by mail to each of the subscribers of said paper." Charlton v. Kelly, 24 Colo. 273 (50 Pac. Rep. 1042). Citing, Rustim v. Merchants' & Miners' Tunnel Co., 23 Colo. 351 (47 Pac. Rep. 300). An affidavit of the publication of a notice of a tax sale must contain all the facts which the statute requires it to show, and its contents cannot be supplemented by parol evidence. Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat., §§ 3884, 3885, construed and applied. Rustin v. Merchants' & Miners' Tunnel Co., 23 Colo. 351 (47 Pac. Rep. 300). Citing, Martin v. Barbour, 140 U. S. 634 (11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 944); Gibney v. Crawford, 51 Ark. 34 (9 S. W. Rep. 309); Martin v. Allard, 55 Ark. 218 (17 S. W. Rep. 878). The publication of a notice in a Sunday newspaper is void. Schwed v. Hartwitz, 23 Colo. 187 (47 Pac. Rep. 295; 58 Am. St. Rep. 221). Baltimore City Code 1879, art. 49, §5, construed and applied-notice of tax sale. Textor v. Shipley, 86 Md. 424 (38 Atl. Rep. 932). N. Y. Laws 1892, ch. 410, applied-notice of tax sale. Clason v. Baldwin, 152 N. Y. 204 (46 N. E. Rep. 322.) Sec. 905. Tax sale-Exhausting personal property. Under Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, § 255, providing that the "tax on personal property shall not be charged against real property, except in case or removals, or where said tax cannot be made out of the personal property," it is held that where the personal property has not been removed, real estate cannot be sold for a tax on it, where the only effort to collect it off of the the personal property was a mere demand for payment. Mt. Carmel L. & W. Co. v. People, 166 Ill. 199 (46 N. E. Rep. 722). Under S. C. Tax Act 1891, real estate could not be sold until the personal property of the delinquent had been exhausted, but a bona fide purchaser of real estate at a tax sale is not affected by a false return of the officer showing that he had exhausted the personal property of the delinquent. Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Waters, 50 S. C. 459 (27 S. E. Rep. 948). Sec. 906. Tax sale-Sale in parcels or in solido. In Colorado the sale of noncontiguous tracts, en masse, for a gross sum is void. Emerson v. Shannon, 23 Colo. 274 (47 Pac. Rep. 302; 58 Am. St. Rep. 232). A tax deed which recites the sale of a large number of noncontiguous lots, en masse, is void, but the fact that the numbers of the lots in a deed conveying several lots are not consecutive does not show that they are not contiguous. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 (47 Pac. Rep. 296; 58 Am. St. Rep. 224). Under La. Const. art. 210, whenever the property can be conveniently offered in less quantity than the entire tract, it is the imperative duty of the officer so to offer it. Bristol v. Murff, 49 La. 357 (21 So. Rep. 519). Where three separate tracts of land, two consisting of forty acres each and one of sixty⚫ acres, were each separately offered and sold for the amount of tax due on each, the officer making no effort to realize the entire tax from a portion of the land, it is held under the statute of Mississippi that the sale was void. Gregory v. Brogan, 74 Miss. 694 (21 So. Rep. 521). Sec. 907. Who may purchase at a tax sale. A mortgagor cannot suffer the premises to be sold at a tax sale and by purchase thereat, assert title against his mortgagee. Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Waters, 50 S. C. 459 (27 S. E. Rep. 948). The grantee of a mortgagor, who has covenanted to pay the taxes on the mortgaged premises, whether he is the immediate or remote grantee, or whether he gets his title by deed or through a second mortgage, is disqualified from acquiring and holding a tax title to the mortgaged premises, as against the mortgagee. American Baptist Missionary Union v. Hastings, 67 Minn. 303 (69 N. W. Rep. 1078). One who stands in the mere relation of mortgagee is under no obligation to pay taxes on the mortgaged premises, nor is he precluded from acquiring a tax title thereto, based on tax sales made before he went into possession of the premises. McLaughlin v. Acom, 58 Kan. 514 (50 Pac. Rep. 441). A husband, while in joint occupancy of his wife's land with her, cannot acquire a valid tax title to it as against her. Ward v. Nestell, 113 Mich. 185 (71 N. W. Rep. 593). Sec. 908. Title and rights of purchaser at a tax sale. A purchaser at a tax sale takes only the interest of the person against whom the land is assessed. Anderson v. Post, Burgin v. Sec. 909. Rights of purchaser at invalid tax saleStatutes construed. A purchaser at an invalid tax sale is entitled to be subrogated to the lien of the state to the extent of the amount thereof discharged by the money paid by him. Reed v. Kalfsbeck, 147 Ind. 148 (45 N. E. Rep. 476). A purchaser of a tax title which is subsequently declared invalid is entitled to recover from the true owner, taxes which he paid in good faith. Reid v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 74 Miss. 769 (21 So. Rep. 745). In the absence of a statutory provision giving indemnity to purchasers at tax sales, such purchasers under the rule of cavat emptar take tax titles with full notice of any and all defects in the tax proceedings which may render their titles voidable or void, and if the titles so acquired are set aside by the courts, the purchasers are remediless. Iowa & Dakota Land Co. v. Barnes Co., 6 N. Dak. 601 (72 N. W. Rep. 1019); Van Nest v. Sargent Co., 7 N. Dak. 139 (73 N. W. Rep. 1083). Cal. Pol. Code, § 3804, authorizing the refundment by the county treasurer of " taxes erroneously or illegally claimed," does not authorize a recovery by a purchaser at a tax sale who paid the tax, where the land was exempt from taxation as the property of the United States. Brooks v. Tulare Co., 117 Cal. 465 (49 Pac. Rep. 469). Construing Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 1610, which provides that when a tax sale is declared void by a judgment of the court, stating for what reason the sale is annulled, the amount paid to the state at the tax sale or for the tax title shall be refunded with interest thereon, it is held that the statute does not apply where the trust relation between the parties pur chasing the tax title and the owner of the land are such that the purchase is merely a payment of the taxes; nor will refundment be made to a purchaser who failed to assert a title on which he could have prevailed in the action in which the judgment declaring the tax sale void was entered, and the facts show that he dealt with the state in bad faith. Easton v. Schofield, 66 Minn. 425 (69 N. W. Rep. 326). Although lands embraced in a tax sale are exempt from taxation, a county is not liable under N. Dak. Laws 1897, ch. 126, § 88, for the amount paid on the sale and the taxes subsequently paid by the purchaser, until the sale has been adjudged void. Van Nest v. Sargent Co., 7 N. Dak. 139 (73 N. W. Rep. 1083). N. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 1629, which gives a purchaser at a tax sale the right to recover the amount of his bid with interest, "when by mistake or the wrongful act of the treasurer land has been sold on which no tax was due at the time," does not apply to a sale made under a description subsequently held to be void, where such description of the land was placed on the assessment roll and tax list of the county by other officials of the county, who were responsible for the description and by them delivered to the treasurer. Iowa & Dakota Land Co. v. Barnes Co., 6 N. Dak. 601 (72 N. W. Rep. 1019). Wis. Rev. Stat., § 1184, which gives the purchaser at a void tax sale the right to have the money paid by him refunded with interest, relates only to lands sold for the nonpayment of general taxes, and has no reference to the sale of lands for nonpayment of assessments for local improvements. Heller v. City of Milwaukee, 96 Wis. 134 (70 N. W. Rep. 1111). Sec. 910. Tender and payments required of one recovering land from the holder of an invalid tax titleConstitutionality and construction of statutes. A statute (Tex. Rev. Stat. 1895, art. 518), requiring as a condition precedent to the recovery by the owner of property sold at a void tax sale, his payment of all taxes due, is unconstitutional. Eustis v. City of Henrietta, 90 Tex. 468 (39 S. W. Rep. 567). Citing, Cooley, Const. Lim., pp. 453, 454; Weller v. City of St. Paul, 5 Minn. 95 (Gil. 70); Taylor v. Miles, 5 Kan. 498 (7 Am. Rep. 558); Lassitter v. Lee, 68 Ala. 287; Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 495 (Gil. 358); Groesbeck v. Seeley, |