13 Mich. 343; Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218; Wright v. Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 341; Wilson v. McKenna, 52 Ill. 44; Reed v. Tyler, 56 Ill. 288; Dunn v. Snell, 74 Me. 22. A statute (Wis. Laws 1883, ch. 278) requiring one who seeks to assail the title of the state to lands conveyed to it by any county for nonpayment of taxes, to pay into the county treasury certain taxes and costs to abide the event of the suit, is constitutional. A failure to comply with the statute must be taken advantage of by plea in abatement, where it does not appear on the face of the complaint. Lombard v. McMillan, 95 Wis. 627 (70 N. W. Rep. 673). But in Maine it is held, that Rev. Stat., ch. 6, § 205, as amended by Stat. 1895, ch. 70, § 11, requiring the owner of land sold for nonpayment of taxes to deposit with the clerk of the court the amount of all taxes, interest and costs accrued up to that time, before he can be admitted to test the validity of the taxes or sale, is unconstitutional. Bennett v. Davis, 90 Me. 102 (37 Atl. Rep. 864). The court say: "While the legislature may regulate the use of legal remedies, may require the payment of various fees, and may require security to be given for fees and costs, the requirement of this statute is not within either category. This requirement practically, is that, before he 'begins' his action or his defense, he shall pay into court the whole sum claimed against him, including interest and costs. With such an obstacle placed in his way by the legislature, the citizen cannot be truly said to have remedy by due course of law, or to have right and justice administered to him freely and without sale. As well might the legislature undertake to enact that no defendant shall begin his defense until he pays into court the whole sum demanded of him. It is not what has been done, or ordinarily would be done, under a statute, but what might be done under it, that determines whether it infringes upon the constitutional right of the citizen. The constitution guards against the chances of infringement. It is evident that under this statute the citizen might in some cases be practically deprived of all remedy."

Where one seeking to recover land held under a tax title, offers to pay the defendant all taxes, penalties, interest and costs paid by him on the property and obtains final judgment in his favor by reversal upon appeal, the lower court should

give the defendant an opporttunity to have the amount due him determined. Herrick y. Niesz, 18 Wash. 132 (51 Pac. Rep. 346). Where a defendant in ejectment claims under a tax deed, the plaintiff cannot recover without tendering taxes, penalties, interests and costs paid by the defendant, as required by Wash. Laws 1888, ch. 22 (Hill's Code, Vol. 2, §§ 676-678). Ward v. Huggins, 16 Wash. 530 (48 Pac. Rep. 240). Where, in an action by a purchaser at a tax sale to quiet title, a defendant asks the cancellation of the tax deed, he must, as a condition of having granted to him the relief prayed, pay the taxes justly chargeable against the property which have been payed by the plaintiff. Browne v. Finlay, 51 Neb. 465 (71 N. W. Rep. 34). Sand. & H. Ark. Dig., § 2595, construed and applied-tender of taxes required of one recovering land sold for taxes. Trigg v. Ray, 64 Ark. 150 (41 S. W. Rep. 55). Mill's Ann. Colo. Stat., § 3904, requiring one who recovers land sold for taxes to pay the value of improvements made and all taxes paid after the sale, applies to a void sale. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 (47 Pac. Rep. 296; 58 Am.. St. Rep. 224). Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat., §§ 3904, 3905, construed and applied-computation of amount due to purchaser upon recovery of land by the owner-conditional decree. Charlton v. Kelley, 24 Colo. 273 (50 Pac. Rep. 1042). S. Dak. Comp. Laws, §§ 1640, 1643, construed and applied-tender and payment required of owner setting aside sale. Salmer v. Lathrop, 10 S. Dak. 216 (72 N. W. Rep. 570).

Sec. 911. Irregularities sufficient to avoid or invalidate a tax sale. A tax sale made in 1887 under the Arkansas Revenue Act of 1883, is void where the fee for the certificate of purchase was made a part of the costs to be included in the bid. Darter v. Houser, 63 Ark. 475 (39 S. W. Rep. 358). Cal. Pol. Code, § 3773, applied-particular recitals in a tax deed held insufficient to show an irregular offering of the property for sale. Rollins v. Woodman, 117 Cal. 516(49 Pac. Rep. 455). Statutes fixing the place af which tax sales must be made are mandatory, and a failure to comply with their provisions renders the sale void. Colo. Gen. Laws 1877, § 2307, applied. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 (47 Pac.

Under Mills' Ann. Colo.

Rep. 296; 58 Am. St. Rep. 224). Stat., § 3888, the county treasurer cannot bid off property for the county without first offering and re-offering the same to private bidders. Charlton v. Kelly, 24 Colo. 273 (50 Pac. Rep. 1042). Under Ia. Code 1873, § 845, the failure of the treasurer to note on the tax books opposite each parcel of land the year or years for which taxes remain due and unpaid, will invalidate a sale. Smith v. Callanan, 103 Ia. 218 (72 N. W. Rep. 513). Under Kan. Gen. Stat. 1889, par. 6957, it is held that a tax deed including a fee for printing the sale notice is voidable if the printer's affidavit of the publication is not transmitted to the county treasurer within fourteen days after the last publication, although it was transmitted to and filed in the office of the county clerk within that time. Douglas v. Craig, 58 Kan. 814 (48 Pac. Rep. 917). Citing, Douglas v. Walker, 57 Kan. 328 (46 Pac. Rep. 318). Where four-tenths of a lot were sold for taxes levied against the whole lot, a tax-deed reciting that four-tenths was subject to taxation and that it was sold for the amount of taxes levied on it, but the amount of taxes recited in the deed was the amount levied against the whole lot, the deed is voidable. York v. Barnes, 58 Kan. 478 (49 Pac. Rep. 596). Where a sheriff's return of a tax sale contains nothing to show that the amount bid was the sum of the judgment and costs and that the sale of the whole parcel was necessary to raise such amount, it reports a void sale, and such return cannot be amended after a delay of thirteen years. McGrath v. Wallace, 116 Cal. 548 (48 Pac. Rep. 719). A sale of land by a description which is void for uncertainty is void; and so is a sale of lands which were offered by the officer in forty-acre lots, where he failed to designate each lot as he offered it for sale. Nelson v. Abernethy, 74 Miss. 164 (21 So. Rep. 150). A statute (Miss. Code 1892, § 3813) providing that "no error in conducting the sale shall invalidate it," does not have the effect to cure a total departure from the manner of selling, prescribed by law. Nelson v. Abernethy, 74 Miss. 164 (21 So. Rep. 150). Under N. J. Gen. Stat., Vol. 3, p. 3356, § 6, the return of a warrant for sale of lands for delinquent taxes, made by a collector of taxes of a borough, which return is not accompanied with a copy of the required notice

of such sale, or with proof that it was published, posted, and mailed as required by law, is fatally defective. Landis v. Borough of Vineland, 60 N. J. L. 271 (37 Atl. Rep. 1099). In the case of a tax sale of land in Salt Lake City, Utah, where it appears that the description of the deed does not correspond with all its immediate antecedents, where the recitals in the deed are not true, and do not correctly describe the land referred to in the notice of sale upon which the deed depended, and where the description in the notice of sale is erroneous and does not correctly describe the property of the defendant, nor the property described in the tax sale and it does not affirmatively appear from the notice of sale, that notice was given defendant of the amount of taxes assessed against him, or when or where the same were payable, as provided by § 8, p. 276, Rev. Ord. Salt Lake City, and § 2030, p. 53, Sess. Laws 1890; and where it appears the property was sold for $10.20 more than the amount of taxes, but nowhere appears what the $10.20 was for, or what became of it, and it nowhere appears how much the costs of the sale were, except that the deed recites the fact that the land was sold for $59.20, it is held that such tax sale is illegal. Eastman v. Gurrey, 15 Utah 410 (49 Pac. Rep. 310). Overruling Hamer v. Weber Co., 11 Utah 1 (37 Pac. Rep. 741); Ogden City v. Hamer, 12 Utah 337 (42 Pac. Rep. 1113); Olsen v. Bagley, 10 Utah 492 (37 Pac. Rep. 739). Particular case in which the validity of a tax sale is assailed on account of confusion in the assessment and description of the land as seated and unseated. Everhart v. Nesbitt, 182 Pa. St. 500 (38 Atl. Rep. 525).

Sec. 912. Irregularities insufficient to invalidate a tax sale. Where the aggregate amount of tax is correctly stated, the sale will not be held irregular on account of the failure of the tax execution to specify the amount of tax for each separate fund. Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Waters, 50 S. C. 459 (27 S. E. Rep. 948). Under Mich. Laws 1893, p. 399, § 99, a tax sale will not be held invalid on account of irregularities which do not prejudice the property rights of the owner. Turner v. Hutchinson, 113 Mich. 245 (71 N. W. Rep. 514). See opinion for application of statute

to particular facts. The certificate of sale for taxes required by Okla. Stat. 1893, §§ 5657, 5663, to be executed by the county treasurer on making the sale is for the benefit and protection of the purchaser whether he be an individual or the county, and the failure of the treasurer to make and execute this certificate in no way affects the validity of the sale which may be proven by other evidence. Pentecost v. Stiles, 5 Okla. 500 (49 Pac. Rep. 921).

Sec. 913. Setting aside tax sales-Practice. Iowa Code, § 897, proving that "no person shall be permitted to question the title acquired by a treasurer's deed without first showing that he, or the person under whom he claims title, had title to the property at the time of the sale, or that title was obtained from the United States or this state after the sale," applies to a suit brought by the state to question a tax title claimed under a deed regular on its face. State v. Havrah, 101 Ia. 486 (70 N. W. Rep. 618). For further construction of this statute, see McQuity v. Doudna, 101 Ia. 144 (70 N. W. Rep. 99). One who has no title to land cannot enjoin a tax sale of it although he has made payment of taxes on it. Broderick v. Allamakee Co., 104 Ia. 750 (73 N. W. Rep. 884). The comptroller of the state of New York has no power to set aside a sale of land to the state for taxes on the application of the owner. People v. Roberts, 151 N. Y. 540 (45 N. E. Rep. 941). A defendant cannot be required to pay costs of an action to set aside a tax deed, where no tender of the amount of taxes was made before the costs were incurred. Glos v. Beckman, 168 Ill. 74 (48 N. E. Rep. 69). A nonresident owner, having no knowledge of a void sale of his property for taxes, is not estopped to question such sale because the purchaser has made improvements without objection from him. Petit v. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 114 Mich. 362 (72 N. W. Rep. 238). Mich. Acts 1889, No. 195, § 62 (3 How. Ann. Stat., § 1170g1) construed and applied-sale of lands-bidding in of land not sold for the state-right of owner to set aside sale. Hilton v. Dumphey, 113 Mich. 241 (71 N. W. Rep. 527). Mich. Acts 1893, No. 206, § 75, con

strued and applied-parties to proceedings to vacate tax sale