146; Thompson v. Carroll, 22 How. (U. S.) 422.

In Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 605, it was said that taxes upon landed property are usually enforced by proceedings providing for their condemnation and sale, and not by a sale under judg. ment against the owner.

1. See People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393; Walsh v. People, 79 Ill. 521; Auditor Gen'l v. Jenkinson, 90 Mich. 523.

In Pidgeon v. People, 36 Ill. 249, it was held that where in Illinois a cause is removed to the circuit court upon repeal, the practice and jurisdiction are not changed, and the trial must be had de novo.

2. People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286; Pidgeon v. People, 36 Ill. 249. And see Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 605.

In California, suit is authorized against both the owner and the property, and personal judgment may be rendered upon personal service of the summons. People v. Fox, 39 Cal. 621. 3. See Hosmer v. People, 96 Ill. 58; People v. Quick, 87 Ill. 435; Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265; Carlisle v. Watts, 78 Ala. 486; Alexander v. Thacker, 30 Neb. 614; Kansas City v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 180; Simonson v. Dolan, 114 Mo. 176.

The owner of record is the person against whom the action should be brought. Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 94. Though all parties in interest are not made parties, a decree may be made as to one who has been made a party. Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265. And see Hogan v. Smith, 11 Mo. App. 314; Desormeaux v. Moylan, 26 La. Ann. 730. A party having no interest in the lands, has no right to make objections to the rendition of judgment, unless he appears as an agent or attorney of the person interested. Hosmer v. People, 96 Ill. 58. See also McClure v. Martland, 24 W. Va. 561.

The assignee of a note secured by a deed of trust, is a necessary party to a suit to enforce a lien for taxes against the land covered by the trust deed. Boatman's Sav. Bank v. Greeve, 84 Mo. 477. And see Gritchell v. Kreidler, 12 Mo. App. 497.

4. See People v. Fox, 39 Cal. 621; Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439; Truman v. Robinson, 44 Cal. 623; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Carlisle v. Watts, 78 Ala. 486; People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 285; Buck v. People, 78 Ill. 560; New Orleans v. Cannon, 10 La. Ann. 764; Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343; Williams v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 524; State v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530; Pritchard v. Madren, 24 Kan. 486; Fudge v. Fudge, 23 Kan. 416; Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Shepard, 9 Kan. 647.

In Goldsworthy v. Johnson, 87 Mo. 233, it was held that an order of publication in a proceeding to charge lands with taxes, need not describe the lands.

5. Scammon v. Chicago, 40 Ill. 146; People v. Otis, 74 Ill. 384; Spellman v. Čurtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Charles v. Waugh, 35 Ill. 315; Nashville v. Weiser, 54 III. 245; Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn. 394; Stearns County v. Smith, 25 Minn. 131; Whelen v. Weever, 93 Mo. 430.

General rules with relation to service by publication, apply to the method of obtaining the order of publication in proceedings to enforce taxes. Martin v. Parsons, 50 Cal. 499.

In Charles v. Waugh, 35 Ill. 315, it was held that a notice which omitted to state that an order of sale would be asked for, was insufficient.

In Carlisle v. Watts, 78 Ala. 486, it was held that a notice addressed to the estate of the decedent, and left at his former residence, conferred no jurisdiction.

In Durham v. People, 67 Ill. 414, it was held that a description of lands as those upon which taxes remained due and unpaid for the year 1871 and pre

vious years, was a substantial compliance with the statutory provision requiring such notice to state the years for which the taxes were due.

In Truman v. Robinson, 44 Cal. 623, it was held that a provision for service by publication, did not repeal a provision previously existing for service by delivering a copy to the person or persons to be certified.

1. Fortman v. Ruggles, 58 Ill. 207; Charles v. Waugh, 35 Ill. 315; McKee v. Champaign County, 53 Ill. 477; Dentler v. State, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 259. See also Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570. In Elting v. Gould, 96 Mo. 535, it was held sufficient to designate the owner of the land taxed, by the name disclosed by recorded deeds.

In Scammon v. Chicago, 40 Ill. 146, it was held, where a newspaper proprietor published a daily newspaper and also a Sunday paper of the same name, which, however, was not delivered to the regular daily subscribers, that the Sunday and daily issues must be regarded as distinct papers, and the publication of the notice in a Sunday paper will be sufficient.

Necessity of Notice.—In all cases there must have been notice, either actual or constructive, for appearance, to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Fortman v. Ruggles, 58 Ill. 207; Charles v. Waugh, 35 Ill. 315; McKee v. Supervisors, 53 Ill. 477; Chicago . Wright, 32 Ill. 192; McKee v. Champaign County, 53 Ill. 477; Dentler v. State, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 258; Pritchard v. Madren, 24 Kan. 486; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162. And see infra, this title, In Actions in Personam, and In Actions in Rem.

The collector's return of service on the notice of condemnation proceedings, is not conclusive, the notice being jurisdictional. Riddle v. Messer, 84 Ala. 236.

Proof of Publication. — Newspapers containing notices of application for judgment against delinquent lands,

afford evidence of the publication of the notice, when accompanied by proof that the paper was a newspaper published in the county. Durham v. People, 67 Ill. 414.

Where publication of notice is proved, it will be presumed that the newspaper in which it was published was one of general circulation. Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn. 394.

A certificate of publication, stating that the foregoing was duly published in the Peoria "Democratic Press," immediately following a tax list, will be held to refer to such list, and it will be presumed that the Peoria “Democratic Press" was a newspaper. Jackson v. Cummings, 15 Ill. 449.

In Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377, it was held that where notice of application for judgment against lands for taxes, is published by a firm or by a corporation, a certificate of one of the partners, or of an officer of the corporation, showing the official connection of the person making it with the newspaper, is sufficient to prove publication.

2. People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286; People v. Sherman, 83 Ill. 165; Mix v. People, 106 Ill. 425; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566.

In Warren v. Cook, 116 Ill. 199, it was held that the filing of objections, by an attorney having general authority to appear for that purpose, must be regarded as an entry of the owner's appearance.

În Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Yavapai County (Arizona, 1889), 21 Pac. Rep. 768, it was held that appearance constituted a waiver of all objections for irregularities, and that the person appearing could be heard only as to the legality of the tax.

3. People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286; Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 279; Morgan v. Camp, 16 Ill. 175; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108; People v. Otis, 74 Ill. 384; Charles v. Waugh, 35 Ill. 315; Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377; Marsh v.

Chesnut, 14 Ill. 223; People v. Brislin, So Ill. 423; San Diego County v. California, etc., R. Co., 65 Cal. 282; Bleidorn v. Abel, 6 Iowa 5.

The report and notice is the foundation of the whole proceeding. Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 279.

In Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173, it was held that it makes no difference, under a statute requiring the notice to be attached to a list of delinquent taxes, whether the notice precedes or follows the list.

1. State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Min. Co., 14 Nev. 220; People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83 Cal. 398; State v. Duncan, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 679. And see Myers v. McRay, 114 Mo. 377; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 113 Mo. 297; Boulware v. Otoe County, 16 Neb. 26.

Where taxes are required to be collected by action, the procedure is in the discretion of the legislature. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 260.

2. McCallum v. Bethany Tp., 42 Mich. 457; Mix v. People, 86 Ill. 312. And see Andrews v. People, 75 Ill. 605; Moran v. January, 47 Mo. 166.

3. In Nevada, it has been held that neither the board of county commissioners nor the district attorney has authority to compromise. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 9 Nev. 79; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 10 Nev. 47; State v. California Min. Co., 15 Nev. 234. See also State v. California Min. Co., 13 Nev. 289.

In Missouri, it has been held that the county court has power to compromise a disputed claim for taxes. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony, 73 Mo. 431.

In Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265, it was held that where an assessment has been illegally compromised, and the amount agreed upon has been paid, the payment so made should be de

ducted from the proper tax on a proceeding to foreclose the tax lien.

4. See Oakland v. Whipple, 39 Cal. 113; People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398; San Luis Obispo County v. White (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. Rep. $64; San Luis Obispo County v. White (Cal. 1891), 27 Pac. Rep. 756; Ward v、 Alton, 23 Ill. App. 475; York v. Goodwin, 67 Me. 260; State v. Tittmann, 103 Mo. 553; Lockhart v. Houston, 45 Tex. 317; Texas Banking, etc., Co. v. State, 42 Tex. 636.

In State v. Duncan, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 679, it was held that a state, county, or city may file a bill, for the enforcement of a lien for taxes due it, in its own name, without the intervention of any commissioner or other officer.

A lien given to a city for unpaid taxes, may be taken from her by statute and vested in the state, and when this is done, it must be enforced by suit in the name of the state. State v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530.

5. Mortensen v. West Point Mfg. Co., 12 Neb. 197; Lord v. Parker, 83 Me. 530; Hart v. Tiernan, 59 Conn. 521.

A mere clerical mistake, in substituting the name of the defendant for that of the collector, in the petition, will not vitiate it. Gibbs v. Southern (Mo. 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 713.

In Meyer v. Burritt, 60 Conn. 117, it was held that where, after suit brought for the collection of a tax, the collector pays to the communities or districts, taxes due from the taxpayer, the court may properly admit such communities or districts as parties plaintiff.

In Gonzales v. Lindsay, 30 La. Ann. 1085, it was held that the police jury of a parish is not the necessary party to a suit brought by a state tax collector, for the recovery of parish taxes.

6. Lockhart v. Houston, 45 Tex. 317; Webster v. Chicago, 62 Ill. 302; Putman v. Fife Lake Tp., 45 Mich. 125.

And see People v. Brislin, 80 Ill. 423; Ward v. Alton, 23 Ill. App. 475; Parks v. Miller, 48 Ill. 360; Schaeffer v. People, 60 Ill. 179; State v. Hamilton, 94 Mo. 544; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. (U. Š.) 127. The complaint or petition must show the right to sue. Bays v. Lapidge, 52 Cal. 481.

In Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86, it was held that under the constitution of Illinois, the court could not render a judgment for the sale of real estate for taxes, upon an application of any other person than the officer whose duty it was to make such application. But in Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265, it was held that where a suit to foreclose a tax lien was brought by an attorney at law occupy ing no official position, and nearly two years elapsed before the landowner entered a motion to dismiss the suit, for want of authority the motion would be overruled.

In State v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, it was held that an action for taxes could not be maintained, where there was no one authorized to prosecute it.

It has been held in Maine, that the right of an officer to sue can be contested only by plea in abatement. Kellar v. Savage, 20 Me. 199.

1. See State v. Hobart, 12 Nev. 408; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 10 Nev. 47; Beers v. People, 83 Ill. 488; People v. Central. Pac. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398.

It has been held in Illinois, that upon a refusal of the proper officer to act, the county board may institute the necessary proceedings. Ward v. Alton, 23 Ill. App. 475.

In Nevada, the attorney general has entire control of all tax suits on the part of the state. Other attorneys may appear with his consent, but not otherwise; but an attorney thus appearing, will be presumed to have done so with his consent, unless the contrary is shown. State v. California Min. Co., 13 Nev. 203.

2. People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83

Cal. 393; People v. California Pac., etc., R. Co. (Cal. 1890), 23 Pac. Rep. 310. And see Los Angeles v. Ballerino (Cal. 1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 581.

Under the Connecticut statutes, a collector who has settled for taxes due the state, town, and city respectively, becomes entitled to all their liens, and should bring but one suit to enforce them. Hart v. Tiernan, 59 Conn. 521.

In Wheeler v. Wilson, 57 Vt. 157, it was held that an action by the collector against a delinquent taxpayer, is an action of assumpsit, under the Vermont statute, and that a count due the collector as an individual, may be joined with that for the tax in the same action.

3. State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Min. Co., 14 Nev. 220; Davenport v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa 633.

Under the Nevada statutes, taxes due the state on the proceeds of mines, for the different quarters of each year, cannot be united in the same cause of action; each separate tax, constitutes a separate and independent liability. State v. Yellow Jacket Silver Min. Co., 14 Nev. 220. And statutes providing that such taxes may be collected in the same manner as other taxes, do not prevent a quarterly collection, though other taxes are collected yearly. State v. Eureka, etc., Min. Co., 8 Nev. 15; State v. California Min. Co., 13 Nev. 203.

In Missouri, all lands owned by the same person may be included in one petition, and in one count thereof, for all taxes of all years remaining due and unpaid. See State v. Rau, 93 Mo. 126. 4. People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393.

In Shain v. Markham, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 578; 20 Am. Dec. 232, it was held to be error to issue a joint summons, in an action for taxes, against several delinquents, for failure to furnish the commissioners with a list of their taxable property.

1. Ottawa Gas Light, etc., Co. v. People, 138 Ill. 336; People v. Davis, 112 Ill. 272. And see Mix v. People, 122 Ill. 641. But see State v. Rau, 93 Mo. 126.

In People v. Central Pacific R. Co., 83 Cal. 393, it was held that the sufficiency of a complaint in an action to recover delinquent taxes, must be tested by the rules regulating pleadings in civil actions, notwithstanding special provisions therefor. See also People v. California Pac. R. Co. (Cal. 1890), 23 Pac. Rep. 310; Putman v. Fife Lake Tp., 45 Mich. 125.

2. People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393; People v. California Pac. R. Co. (Cal. 1890), 23 Pac. Rep. 310; Vaughan v. Daniels, 98 Mo. 230; Vaughan v. Noyes (Mo. 1889), 11 S. W. Rep. 574. And see People v. Cone, 48 Cal. 427; Ottawa Gas Light, etc., Co. v. People, 138 Ill. 336. Vagueness of description of the property taxed, in a tax bill, is fatal. Jefferson v. Whipple, 71 Mo. 519.

In Pritchard v. Madren, 24 Kan. 486, it was held that the omission of a description of the land and the name of the owner, from the title of a petition, does not render the judgment void, where the land is fully described in the body of the petition.

In State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 136, it was held that it is sufficient to set out the number of miles owned by a railroad company in a designated county, but that the petition need not state the number of miles, if it gives the amount of the railroad tax levied against the road by the county. 3. People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 83 Cal. 393; People v. California Pac. R. Co. (Cal. 1890), 23 Pac. Rep. 310; Bowman v. People, 114 Ill. 474. But see Pritchard v. Madren, 24 Kan. 486. In People v. Winkelman, 95 Ill. 412, it was held that a declaration in an action for taxes, should allege that the defendant was the owner of the forfeited property at the time the tax was required to be assessed. See also Biggins v. People, 96 Ill. 381; Bowman v. People, 114 Ill. 474

In State v. Sloss, 87 Ala. 119, it was held that a complaint in an action against an agent, for taxes assessed against his principal, must show that 25 C. of L.-21

the recovery is sought under the statute permitting it.

In Pritchard v. Madren, 24 Kan. 486, it was held that the failure to state the name of the true owner of the land, in a petition and judgment, does not vitiate the proceedings.

Unknown Owners.In State v. Staley, 76 Mo. 158, it was held that where persons unknown are made parties defendant to a suit, for the collection of back taxes, it must be alleged in the petition and recited in an order of publication, that there are persons interested whose names are unknown, and their interests, and the manner in which they were interested, must be described so far as can be ascertained.

4. People v. Davis, 112 Ill. 272; Ottawa Gas Light, etc., Co. v. People, 138 Ill. 336; People v. Central Pacific R. Co., 83 Cal. 393; Rockland v. Farnsworth, 83 Me. 228.

It must be made to appear that all the statutory requirements have been complied with. North Tonawanda v. Western Trans. Co., 1 Sheld. (N. Y.) 371; Young v. Lorain, 11 Ill. 637; Williams v. State, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 36. And see Gregnon v. Astor, 2 How. (U. S.) 319. And the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Hill v. Crompton, 119 Mass. 376.

In Den v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 18 How. (U. S.) 272, it was held that the return of a marshal, that he has levied on lands by virtue of his warrant, is prima facie evidence that there were no goods or other chattels to levy on.

Form of Complaint.-The legislature has power to prescribe the form of complaint to be used in actions for the recovery of delinquent taxes. Stockton v. Western Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 73 Cal. 621. And where the statute prescribes the necessary requisites of a good declaration, no other need be added. Wheeler v. Wilson, 57 Vt. 157.

In State v. Rau, 93 Mo. 126, it was held that the cause of action must be set out in the petition, and not in the tax bill. See also Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Pendleton County (Ky. 1886), 2 S. W. Rep. 176.

In Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26, it was held that a tax duplicate is not such a written instrument as to make it necessary that a copy thereof should be