v. Bettle, 50 N. J. L. 132; People v. Williams (Supreme Ct.), 20 N. Y. Supp. 350.

A determination will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. People v. Campbell, 70 Hun (N. Y.) 599.

Admission of Evidence on Appeal.-As a general rule, evidence may be admitted in addition to the facts shown by the record, the object of the appeal being to secure a new trial on the merits. Grimes v. Burlington, 74 Iowa 123. In New York, on certiorari to review a tax assessment, the court may appoint a referee to take such testimony as it may direct. People v. Zoeller (Supreme Ct.), 15 N. Y. Supp. 684. And see Hutchinson v. Board of Equalization, 66 Iowa 35.

1. Oregon, etc., Sav. Bank v. Catlin, 15 Oregon 342. And see Wood v. Riddle, 14 Oregon 254.

2. Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 655; Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc., R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 344; U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 71; Morrow v. Dows, 28 N. J. Eq. 463; State v. Van Horn, 45 N. J. L. 136; Camden v. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 398; Garrettson v. Scofield, 44 Iowa 37; Jaffray v. Anderson, 66 Iowa 719; Hedman v. Anderson, 8 Neb. 180; Otoe County v. Matthews, 18 Neb. 466; Meyer v. Burritt, 60 Conn. 122; Albany Brewing Co. v. Mereden, 48 Conn. 243; Philadelphia v. Greble, 38 Pa. St. 339; Burgwin v. Burchfield, 28 Pittsb L. J. (Pa.) 13; Allegheny City's Appeal, 41 Pa. St. 60; Brigg's Appeal, 38 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 262; Board of Education v. Old Dominion Iron, etc.. Co., 18 W. Va. 441; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 92 Ky. 64; Miller v. Anderson, S. Dak. 539; Tousey v. Post, 91 Mich. 631; Lyon v. Guthard, 52 Mich. 271; Bailey v. Fuqua, 24 Miss. 497; Anderson v. State, 23 Miss. 459; Barker v. Smith, 10 S. Car. 226.

The obligation to assess taxes does not give a lien on the property on which they ought to be assessed. Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 655; Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 107. Right of prior payment given by statute does not operate as a lien. Anderson v. State, 23 Miss. 459; U. S. v. Hooe, 3 Cranch (U. S.) 73.

3. Philadelphia v. Grevle, 38 Pa. St. 339:

In Barker v. Smith, 10 S. Car. 226, the court, in discussing the question whether, under a certain state of facts, a lien existed, said: "In order to create a lien on land, for the payment of a tax, it is necessary that there should be either a declaration to that effect by some act of legislature, or necessity for such lien, in order to render effective means provided for the enforcement of such tax;" and again, "It follows, therefore, that while the legislature may, as an incident of the enforcement of a tax, create, in terms, a lien that may subsist with or without defined modes of converting such property into money, yet, failing to raise such lien directly, it can only be raised as incidental and subservient to such means as may be authorized for the enforcement of the tax, in which case it becomes an accessory to the power of disposition in respect thereto; intimating that there might be cases in which the existence of the lien might be inferred from the necessity of the case. 4. Cooley on Taxation (2d ed.), p. 444; New England L. & T. Co. v. Young, 81 Iowa 738; Jaffray v. Anderson, 66 Iowa 719.

5. Miller v. Anderson, 1 S. Dak. 539; State v. Newark, 42 N. J. L. 38; Howell v. Essex County, 32 N. J. Eq. 672.

The statute must be strictly construed as against the party in whose favor the lien is created, U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 71; conse

quently, in favor of innocent purchasers of the property subject to the lien. U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 1 McCrary (U. S.) I. So a lien created upon land upon which whisky was distilled, was held not to apply to a case where the distillation was made by one upon the land of another without his knowledge or consent. Gudger v. Bates, 52 Ga. 285.

The proceedings authorized by the statute to create and enforce the lien must be followed as directed. Lyon v. Alley, 130 U. S. 177; Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 614.

It was held in Hayden v. Foster, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 492, that the provision in the Massachusetts Tax Act of 1824, "whenever any tax shall be assessed on any real estate liable to taxation, such tax shall be a lien on said estate," extended to county and city taxes as well as to state taxes, and that the lien continued in force until the tax was paid. 1. Kansas v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 180.

2. Pittsburgh's Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 455. See also Dallam v. Oliver, 3 Gill (Md.) 445; Smith v. Auditor Gen❜l, 20 Mich. 398; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356. 3. Osterberg v. Union Trust Co., 93 U. S. 424; New England L. & T. Co. v. Young, 81 Iowa 740; Parker v. Baxter, 2 Gray (Mass.) 185; Spratt v. Price, 18 Fla. 289.

The lien is upon the land itself and not merely upon the interest of one who has a life interest therein. Cooper v. Holmes, 71 Md. 20. And upon the title as well as the land. Oldhams v. Jones, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 458.

The lien attaches without regard to ownership, Dunlap v. Gallatin, 15 Ill. 7; so it matters not whether the owner be a resident or a non-resident. Edwards . Beaird, 1 Ill. 70.

4. Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 346; Vanarsdalen's Appeal, 3 W. N. C. (Pa.) 463.

An assessment on the bank stock in the name of the bank, instead of in the names of the individual stockholders, does not invalidate the lien. Small v. Lawrenceburgh, 128 Ind. 231.

Taxes which are a lien upon land may be paid out of the proceeds of a sheriff's sale of an interest in the land, although the person whose title is sold never held title to the land in his own name, and the title, both legal and equitable at the time of the sale, was in a third person. Dungan's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 414.

When, by a change of county boundaries made after land has been assessed for taxes, the land falls into another county, the lien of the tax on such land still continues, and the tax collector of the old county may enforce the collection of the tax by a sale. Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 38; Devor v. McClintock, 9 W. & S. (Pa.) So.

5. Bellocq v. New Orleans, 31 La. Ann. 471; Justice v. Logansport, 101 Ind. 326.

Where land is sold for state, county, and municipal taxes, and the proceeds are insufficient to pay all, the state cannot assert a prior right to satisfaction, if no special priority is given it by statute. Nashville v. Lee, 12 Lea. (Tenn.) 454.

6. 2 Dill. Mun. Corp., § 821; Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; Schmidt v. Smith, 57 Mo. 135; Jefferson v. Whipple, 71 Mo. 519; Philadelphia v. Greble, 38 Pa. St. 339; Howell v. Philadelphia, 38 Pa. St. 471; Mix v. Ross, 57 Ill. 125.

The want of a tax lien, however, does not deprive a city of the right to recover its taxes by action. Jefferson v. McCarty, 74 Mo. 55. See also Jef

ferson v. Mock, 74 Mo. 61. In New Haven v. Fair Haven, etc., R. Co., 38 Conn. 422; 9 Am. Rep. 399, the lien given to the city by its charter was held to be a security in addition to, and not interfering with, the remedy at law.

1. Where a statute provided that "if any person fails to pay any tax levied on his real and personal property, the town collector may recover the same by a civil action in the name of the corporation before any court of competent jurisdiction," it was held that the tax after assessment did not become a lien, and the collector could not, before a personal judgment, obtain levy upon the property. Alexander v. Helber, 35 Mo. 334; Ham v. Miller, 20 Iowa 450.

In Merriam v. Woody, 25 Iowa 163, it was held that in the charter of a municipal corporation, the grant of the power to levy and collect a special tax on lots within the corporation for the improvement of the walks in front thereof, does not include the power to sell and convey in case of the non-payment of the tax. Nor would such power be inferred from an express provision in the charter to the effect that the collection of the taxes provided for shall be enforced as may be provided by ordinances of the city.

The state may retain the tax lien although it has delegated the power to tax. Cook v. Auditor Gen'l, 79 Mich. 100.

2. Where, by the language of the legislative enactment, a city was empowered to "provide by ordinance or other wise for the prompt collection of taxes due to the city, and to that end the city shall have power to sell both real and personal property," it was held that this language was sufficiently broad in its scope to allow the city to make its taxes a lien upon the property. Eschbach v. Pitts, 6 Md. 71. See Dallam v. Oliver, 3 Gill (Md.) 445. See also Dill. Mun. Corp., vol. 11, § 821, n. 2.

3. People v. Hastings, 29 Cal. 450; People . Pearis, 37 Cal. 259; Worth

ington v. Whitman, 67 Iowa 190; North Carolina R. Co. v. Alamance, 77 N. Car. 4; Bell v. Barnard, 37 Ill. App. 275.

A city cannot create a valid municipal lien for improving a street, unless the improvement is made in pursuance of law. Hershberger v. Pittsburgh, 115 Pa. St. 78; Western Pa., etc., R. Co. v. Allegheny, 92 Pa. St. 100.

4. U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 1 McCrary (U. S.) 1; Bryn Mawr v. Anderson, 1o Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 442. See also Thurston v. Little, 3 Mass. 429; Louisville v. Bank of Kentucky, 3 Metc. (Ky.) 148; Judevine v. Jackson, 18 Vt. 470.

The list must strictly follow the statute. Graves v. Bruen, 11 Ill. 431. Listing in one class will not authorize the charging of the land with the tax of another class. Tibbetts v. Job, 11 Ill. 453

A failure of the assessor to swear to the assessment roll when required to do so by statute, renders the tax invalid, and, consequently, no lien can be created therefor. Morrill v. Taylor, 6 Neb.. 236; Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367; Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; McNish v. Perrine, 14 Neb. 582.

In Dows v. Dale, 74 Iowa 108, where delinquent taxes were not carried forward on the regular tax list as provided by statute, but were entered in a book kept by the treasurer, which was unknown to the law, it was held that there was no valid lien.

When the purchaser of real estate obtains a certificate from the treasurer that there are no delinquent taxes upon the property, and the tax books do not show any tax to be due, but it is found afterwards that there were delinquent taxes due thereon at the time, which had not been brought forward in the tax books, he is an innocent purchaser and takes the estate free from all liens for taxes. Jiska v. Ringgold County, 57 Iowa 630. And if the delinquent taxes are brought forward in the tax books after the purchase, they will not be a lien upon the property, as against the purchaser. Cummings v. Easton, 46 Iowa 183.

Record.-In Pennsylvania, the lien

for taxes cannot exist unless a certified copy has been entered of record as required by the law creating it, Wilson's Estate, 150 Pa. St. 285; Anspach's Appeal (Pa. 1886), 2 Cent. Rep. 532; although, under a prior act of 1824, such a provision of record was held to be simply directory. Parker's Appeal, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 449; Wallace's Estate, 59 Pa. St. 401.

In Louisiana, registry is essential to preserve the lien of the state for taxes as against third persons, New Orleans Sav. Inst. v. Leslie, 28 La. Ann. 496; Jacob v. Preston, 31 La. Ann. 516; but not as against the person assessed. Adams v. Wakefield, 26 La. Ann. 592. Taxes of the city of New Orleans are required to be registered. Cochran v. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 30 La. Ann. 1365. Remedy. But a defective levy may be remedied and the lien enforced by retrospective legislation authorizing the levy and collection in subsequent years upon the assessment of the proper year, 1 Kent's Com. (12th ed.) 455; Fairfield v. People, 94 Ill. 244; and for this purpose the assessment roll of the previous year is used. Cowgill v. Long, 15

Ill. 202.

1. State v. Miles, 48 N. J. L. 450; People v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Ill. 369. See also Woodside v. Wilson, 32 Pa. St. 52; Richardson v. State, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 51.

Where a lot was assessed as "lot number in the assessor's subdivision of the west half of section 1, township 13, etc.," no number of acres being given, and it appearing that no plot of such described lot was ever made or recorded, such description was held to be totally insufficient, and no lien could be had against the premises for the taxes assessed thereon. Sanford v. People, 102 Ill. 374. But the fact that property subject to taxation is imperfectly described, will not preclude the purchaser at the tax sale from maintaining an action to enforce a lien against the land

intended to be leased and sold. Cooper v. Jackson, 71 Ind. 244; Sloan v. Sewall, 81 Ind. 180.

A lien will hold if the purchaser can show what property was intended to be taxed. State v. Casteel (Ind. 1887), 8 West. Rep. 893.

Personal Property.-An assessment upon personal property located by a street and number is not a sufficient description to create a lien against the property. Bell v. Barnard, 37 Ill. App. 275.

The identification, it is said, is a question arising for the jury on the evidence. Stewart v. Shoenfelt, 13 S. & R. (Pa.) 360; Thompson v. Fisher, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 520.

2. Hart v. Tiernan, 59 Conn. 521. 3. Brown v. Goodwin, 75 N. Y. 409. In U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 72, it was held that under U. S. Rev. Stat., § 3186, which provides that "if any person liable to pay any tax, neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount shall be a lien in favor of the United States from the time it was due until paid," etc., demand is necessary to constitute a valid lien. See also U. S. v. Pacific R. Co., 1 McCrary (U. S.) 1.

4. Black on Tax Titles, p. 181; Blackwell on Tax Titles, § 478; Eaton v. Chesbrough, 82 Mich. 214; Webb v. Bidwell, 15 Minn. 479; Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 326. See also Hutchins v. Moody, 30 Vt. 655. This time is generally the time of the assessment of the tax. Lyon v. Alley, 130 U. S. 177.

In Cooley on Taxation (2d ed.), p. 448, it is said that the lien should attach at the time of the extension of the tax upon the roll; and this is the rule in Michigan. Harrington v. Hilliard, 27 Mich. 271.

5. In Massachusetts, taxes upon real estate constitute a lien thereon for two years after they are committed to the collector, and this lien relates back to

the day on which they were assessed, Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 59;8 Am. Rep. 296; Hill v. Bacon, 110 Mass. 387; Davis v. Bean, 114 Mass. 358; and is not secondary or collateral to any personal liability of the person to whom it is assessed. Swan v. Emerson, 129 Mass. 289.

In Missouri, state and county taxes are made a lien on real estate from and after the first Monday in September, and the owner at that time will be liable to a subsequent purchaser for them, on his covenant of warranty, even though the sale is prior to the assessment. McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130; Blossom v. Van Court, 34 Mo. 390; 86 Am. Dec. 114.

The lien relates back and takes effect from the inception point of the assessment, although the assessment may not be consummated until a later day or month in the year. Thus, where the statute required the assessment to date from the first Monday of September and to include the taxable property of the taxpayers respectively owned by them on that day, it was held that the taxes became a lien on that date by relation, although not actually assessed until December. It is immaterial that the rights of a third person who purchased for value and without notice, have intervened. McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130.

In New York, no lien or incumbrance is created by the tax until after the list containing it is confirmed. Barlow v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 63 N. Y. 399; 20 Am. Rep. 547; Fisher v. New York, 67 N. Y. 73; Washington Heights M. E. Church v. New York, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 297; for the amount of the tax is not ascertained and determined until confirmation. Dowdney v. New York, 54 N. Y. 186.

In Illinois, taxes upon real estate become a lien upon the land charged from and after the first day of May in each year; that being the day on which owners of land are required to list it for taxation, see Cooper v. Corbin, 105 Ill. 224; Almy v. Hunt, 48 Ill. 45; but personal property taxes do not become a lien on real estate until the collector, on failure to collect the tax on personal property, charges a sum on such real estate in his application for judgment for delinquent taxes. Parsons v. East St. Louis Gas Light,

etc., Co., 108 Ill. 384; Carter v. Rodenwald, 108 Ill. 351.

No lien is created upon personal property until the tax books are placed in the hands of the collector, Schaeffer v. People, 60 Ill. 179; Gaar v. Hurd, 92 Ill. 315; Binkert v. Wabash R. Co., 98 Ill. 206; Belleville Nail Co. v. People, 98 Ill. 399; and if the collector fails to make any levy on the personal property until after the return day of the warrant, the warrant then being dead, all liens that might have been, but were not, perfected by a levy are lost. Ream v. Stone, 102 Ill. 359.

In California, a judgment rendered to enforce a lien on particular property assessed is made a lien upon all the real estate of the person assessed, and the lien is held to relate back to the time of the assessment. Reeve v. Kennedy, 43 Cal. 643.

In Indiana, the aggregate amount of taxes upon poll, personal and real estate, is a lien upon all real estate of the taxpayer within the county, and such lien attaches on the first day of January in each year. Cones v. Wilson, 14 Ind. 465; Isaacs v. Decker, 41 Ind. 410; Veit v. Graff, 37 Ind. 254. A warrantor before such date does not covenant against them. Overstreet v. Dobson, 28 Ind. 256.

It is also a lien upon personal property for all taxes, but no time is fixed by statute for it to attach. As between the state and the owner at the time of settlement, the lien attaches as soon as the duplicate is issued to the treasurer. Cones v. Wilson, 14 Ind. 465. See McNeil v. Fareman, 37 Ind. 203; Barker v. Morton, 19 Ind. 146.

In Vermont, the lien for taxes becomes a fixed incumbrance when the officer by some official act manifests his intention to pursue the land for the purpose of enforcing the collection of the taxes; and in the case of a non-resident proprietor, taxes become a lien when the constable has made a list of the land and the taxes assessed thereon, and deposited the same in the town clerk's office for record. Hutchins v. Moody, 34 Vt. 433.

In Iowa, taxes on personal property do not become a lien on the real estate of the owner until they are due, and they do not become due by the mere assessment of the property for taxation. Castle v. Anderson, 69 Iowa 428. 1. McKay v. Batchellor, 2 Colo.