to be done and had at the hands of the public officials intrusted with the various steps leading up to the execution of the deed and not something required to be done by the applicant for the deed. Herrick v. Niesz, 16 Wash. 74 (47 Pac. Rep. 414). Citing Miller v. Miller, 96 Cal. 376 (31 Pac. Rep. 247; 31 Am. St. Rep. 229); Reed v. Thompson, 56 Ia. 455 (9 N. W. Rep. 331).

Sec. 918. Judicial proceedings to collect taxes. In a collector's suit for taxes, a school district tax can be joined with the town, county and state taxes. Mason v. Belfast Hotel Co., 89 Me. 381 (36 Atl. Rep. 622). In an action to foreclose a lien for taxes, neither the wife of the landowner nor other lien holders are necessary parties. People v. Weber, 164 Ill. 412 (45 N. E. Rep. 723). Under the statute of Maine a complaint in an action brought by a town to recover taxes must aver that the selectmen directed in writing the action to be brought. Inhabitants of Wellington v. Small, 89 Me. 154 (36 Atl. Rep. 107). Particular tax judgment held not subject to collateral attack. Kizer v. Caufield, 17 Wash. 417 (49 Pac. Rep. 1064). Particular tax judgment book held sufficient under the laws of Minnesota. Sommerville v. Sommerville v. Thrift, 69 Minn. 474 (72 N. W. Rep. 706). Ala. Code, § 572, applied-notice of decree of sale under an assessment against an unknown owner. Smith v. Cox, 115 Ala. 503 (22 So. Rep. 78). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1889, ch. 120, § 253, regulating the foreclosure of a lien for taxes is applicable to liens for drainage assessments made under Drainage Act, May 29, 1879. People v. Weber, 164 Ill. 412 (45 N. E. Rep. 723). Baltimore City Code 1879, art. 49, § 4, construed and applied-notice of delinquency in the payment of taxes. Textor v. Shipley, 86 Md. 424 (38 Atl. Rep. 932). Mich. Pub. Acts 1889, No. 195, § 59, construed and applied-petition by auditor general for the sale of lands for delinquent taxes. Muirhead v. Bergland, 111 Mich. 655 (70 N. W. Rep. 143). Mich. Laws 1893, No. 206, construed and applied decree in tax proceedings. Mersereau v. Miller, 112 Mich. 103 (70 N. W. Rep. 341). Errors, irregularities, or omissions in the assessment of land, do not go to the jurisdiction of a court to render judgment for taxes and are no ground for a collateral attack on the judgment. Minn.

Gen. Stat. 1894, § 1582, applied. McNamara v. Fink, 71 Minn. 66 (73 N. W. Rep. 649). Although under Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, § 7569, an owner of land is personally liable for taxes assessed thereon, it is held that no personal judgment can be rendered against him for such taxes, as §§ 7608, 76817684, provide a remedy for their collection which will be construed as exclusive. State v. Snyder, 139 Mo. 549 (41 S. W. Rep. 216). For cases depending upon particular questions of evidence in an action to enforce a lien for taxes, see City of Olympia v. Stevens, 15 Wash. 601 (47 Pac. Rep. 11). As to the conclusiveness of a decree of condemnation in Arkansas, see Streett v. Reynolds, 63 Ark. 1 (38 S. W. Rep. 150).

One

Sec. 919. Statute of limitations and tax titles. holding under a void tax deed cannot claim the benefit of the statute of limitations. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 (47 Pac. Rep. 296; 58 Am. St. Rep. 224); McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276 (21 So. Rep. 103), applying Fla. Laws 1883, ch. 3413, § 61; Salmer v. Lathrop, 10 S. Dak. 216 (72 N. W. Rep. 570). In the last case the court say: "Says Mr. Black : 'The provision of a statute of limitations, to the effect that an action for the recovery of real property sold for taxes can only be commenced within a certain number of years from the date of the recording of the deed, will not run in favor of a tax deed that is void upon its face, even when the land intended to be conveyed by the tax deed has been in actual, open and notorious possession of the holder of the void deed during the whole of the statutory period.' To the same effect, see, also, Heger v. DeGroat, 3 N. Dak. 354 (56 N. W. Rep. 150); Hall's Heirs v. Dodge, 18 Kan. 277; Daniels v. Case, 45 Fed. Rep. 843; Nichols v. Mc Glathery, 43 Ia. 189; Towle v. Holt, 14 Neb. 221 (15 N. W. Rep. 203); Hurd v. Bresner, 3 Wash. 1 (28 Pac. Rep. 871; 28 Am. St. Rep. 17); Pearce v. Tittsworth, 87 Mo. 635; Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 259 (6 N. W. Rep. 781); Coulter v. Stafford, 6 C. C. A. 18 (56 Fed. Rep. 564); Redfield v. Parks, 132 U.S. 239 (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83)."

In Alabama the three year statute of limitations does not commence to run against an action to recover land sold for

taxes until delivery and registration of the tax deed. Smith v. Cox, 115 Ala. 503 (22 So. Rep. 78). Cal. Pol. Code, § 3788, providing that " in all cases where land has been heretofore sold for delinquent taxes, the deed therefor must be made within one year and three months after this act takes effect, and unless so made the purchaser shall be deemed to have relinquished all his rights under such sale," does not apply to a purchase made by the state. Z. Russ & Sons Co. v. Crichton, 117 Cal. 695 (49 Pac. Rep. 1043). Applying Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat., § 3902, making a tax deed prima facie evidence that the property was advertised for sale as required by law, and § 3904, providing that "no action for the recovery of land sold for taxes shall lie unless the same be brought within five years after the execution and delivery of the deed therefor by the treasurer," it is held that an action assailing a tax title on the ground of the insufficiency of the notice of sale must be brought within five years. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264 (47 Pac. Rep. 296; 58 Am. St. Rep. 224). A statute of limitations (Fla. Laws 1887, ch. 3681, § 60), limiting an action by a former owner to four years, begins to run from the execution and delivery of the tax deed. Spaulding v. Ellsworth, 39 Fla. 76 (21 So. Rep. 812). Construing Ia. Code 1873, § 902, providing that "no action for the recovery of real property sold for the payment of taxes shall lie, unless the same be brought within five years after the treasurer's deed is executed and recorded," it is held that § 2532, providing that an action shall be deemed commenced upon delivery of the original notice to the sheriff of the proper county with intent that it be served immediately, applies to actions of this charSmith v. Callanan, 103 Ia. 218 (72 N. W. Rep. 513). Under Kan. Code Civ. Proc., § 16, a party who seeks to recover lands sold for taxes claiming under a tax deed duly recorded, must bring his action in two years after his cause of action accrues. Coale v. Campbell, 58 Kan. 480 (49 Pac. Rep. 604). Where a statute (Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 1610), which provides that where a tax sale is judicially declared void, the purchaser may have refunded to him the purchase price and all the subsequent taxes, penalties and costs paid by him, with interest, specifies that "such proceedings shall not operate as a payment or cancellation of any tax included in

acter.

the judgment or refundment, but the same shall stand as originally extended against the property, and * * be included in the taxes thereon for the current year in the next delinquent tax sale," it is held that the object of the statute being to give the state the right to institute new proceedings to enforce the payment of taxes after it has been judicially determined that prior proceedings for that purpose were ineffectual, the right to institute such new proceedings cannot be barred by the lapse of time between the institution of the original proceedings and the judicial determination of their invalidity. Chisago Co. v. Kipp, 70 Minn. 286 (73 N. W. Rep. 164). In Nebraska it is held that an action for the foreclosure of a tax lien cannot be maintained after the lapse of more than nine years from the date of the tax sale, by virtue of which such lien is claimed to have originated. Hathaway v. Nelson, 52 Neb. 109 (71 N. W. Rep. 981). Construing and applying Wash. Laws 1877, p. 169; Laws 1879, p. 48, it is held that a tax deed cannot be set aside unless action is

brought within ten years. Ward v. Huggins, 16 Wash. 530 (48 Pac. Rep. 240). S. & B. Ann. Wis. Stat., § 1210h, prescribing the period of limitation upon actions to set aside a tax sale or cancel a tax certificate, applies to tax sales and certificates issued thereon for street improvements. Levy v. Wilcox, 96 Wis. 127 (70 N. W. Rep. 1109).

Sec. 920.

Miscellaneous notes. Where a landowner's failure to pay taxes resulted from the treasurer's misinforming him as to the amount due, which was occasioned by the former's inaccurate description of the property, he must suffer the consequences. Browne v. Finlay, 51 Neb. 465 (71 N. W. Rep. 34). Where two lots belonging to one person are assessed together, in an action by a subsequent purchaser of one of them, against the county to quiet title, the court should apportion the taxes so as to require him to pay only the amount justly due on his lot. Rochford v. Fleming, 10 S. Dak. 25 (71 N. W. Rep. 317). Defects in tax proceedings anterior to the execution of a tax deed good upon its face, which has been of record five years, cannot, in an action to quiet title brought by the tax-deed claimant, be shown by the defendant thereto for the purpose of basing thereon a claim of recovery, as in eject

ment, for rents and profits. Goddard v. Storch, 57 Kan. 714 (48 Pac. Rep. 15). One whose property is within the limits of a city cannot restrain the collection of a city tax regularly assessed, because his property is outside the range of municipal benefits. Frace v. City of Tacoma, 16 Wash. 69 (47 Pac. Rep. 219).

Sec. 921. Construction of miscellaneous statutes. Proceedings for depriving an owner of his land by sale for nonpayment of taxes being statutory, every requsite of the statute having the semblance of benefit to the owner must be substantially, if not strictly complied with. Clason v. Baldwin, 152 N. Y. 204 (46 N. E. Rep. 322). Conn. Gen. Stat.,

§ 3844, construed and applied-collection of taxes assessed against an estate of a decedent. White v. Town of Portland, 68 Conn. 293 (36 Atl. Rep. 46). Fla. Acts 1885, ch. 3628, 3786, applied-sale of land by tax collector of the city of Orlando. State v. Bradshaw, 39 Fla. 137 (22 So. Rep. 296. Where, for the purpose of obtaining an extension of time on a prior mortgage, one who holds a mortgage, the lien of which is superior to a lien for taxes assessed against the landowner on his personal property, redeems from a tax sale made for such taxes, he cannot recover from the county the amount paid by him in making such redemption, under Iowa Code, § 870, directing the treasurer to refund any taxes found to have been erroneously or illegally exacted. Bibbins v. Polk Co., 100 Ia. 493 (69 N. W. Rep. 1007). Iowa Revision, 1860, §§ 711, 712, construed and applied-taxation of government lands-when they become taxable. Barrett v. Kevane, 100 Ia. 653 (69 N. W. Rep. 1036). Kan. Comp. Laws 1862, ch. 198, §§ 4, 6, 13, construed and applied-taxation of lands entered in 1863 with military bounty land warrants. Goddard v. Storch, 57 Kan. 714 (48 Pac. Rep. 15). La. Laws 1884, Act No. 82, applied-adjudication by tax collector. Fishel v. Stark, 49 La. 855 (21 So. Rep. 595); Fitzpatrick v. Leake, 49 La. 794 (21 So. Rep. 597). La. Laws 1884, Act No. 82, construed and applied-validity of tax sale. Clifford v. Michener, 49 La. 1511 (22 So. Rep. 811). Md. Code, Art. 81, §§ 47, 64; Laws 1892, ch. 518, construed and applied-liability of trustees for creditors of