court has no jurisdiction.1 The statute must be complied with in the application for and rendition of judgment.2 (5) The Determination (a) In Actions in Personam.-An ordinary money judgment terminates a personal action for taxes.3 This judgment is enforced, like an ordinary judgment, by execution.* No additional force attaches to the judgment from its having been rendered for taxes.5 (b) In Actions in Rem. In actions in rem the judgment and execution are against the property itself. To enable the court to render judgment, the record must affirmatively show facts necessary to the jurisdiction.8 The form of the judgment, and its recitals, when prescribed by statute, must be substantially complied with; but the judg 1. Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 279; Brown v. Hogle, 30 Ill. 119; Spurlock v. Dougherty, 81 Mo. 171. And see • People v. Nichols, 49 Ill. 517; Kinney v. Forsythe, 96 Mo. 414. Up to that time, the owner has a right to pay the taxes charged upon the property. Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 279. In Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173, it was held that the service of the notice and delinquent list is complete with the last publication, and that jurisdiction then attaches, and that therefore a judgment entered twenty days after the last publication is not void, though erroneous. See also Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn. 394. Application at Subsequent Term.-In Beers v. People, 83 Ill. 488, it was held that under the Illinois statute, the collector may apply for judgment against lands for taxes at the May term; and if for any cause it is not made, or judgment is not recovered at that term, he may apply at any subsequent term. See also People v. Nichols, 49 Ill. 517. 2. Brown v. Hogle, 30 Ill. 119; Spell man v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Hough v. Hastings, 18 Ill. 312; Marsh Chesnut, 14 Ill. 223; Hope v. Sawyer, 14 Ill. 254; Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Ill. 210; Essington v. Neill, 21 Ill. 139; Morgan v. Camp, 17 Ill. 175; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 143. v. personal, and may be levied on any property of the defendant, liable to execution. Greenwood v. La Salle, 137 Ill. 225; Douthett v. Kettle, 104 Ill. 356. 5. Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Com., 92 Ky. 64; Byrne v. La Salle, 123 Ill. 581; Greenwood v. La Salle, 137 III. 225. Such a judgment cannot be satisfied by a sale as under a judgment in a proceeding in rem. Byrne v. La Salle, 123 Ill. 581. 6. Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 135; Pidgeon v. People, 36 Ill. 249. And see St. John v. East St. Louis, 50 Ill. 92; Chesnut v. Marsh, 12 Ill. 173. In Chesnut v. Marsh, 12 Ill. 173, it was held that a judgment for taxes cannot be impeached because rendered against the owner as well as against the land; that part of it charging the owner will be regarded as surplusage. 7. Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 138. And see Brown v. Joliet, 22 Ill. 125; Pidgeon. v. People, 36 Ill. 249. 8. Carlisle v. Watts, 78 Ala.486; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Gunn v. Howell, 27 Ala. 663; 42 Am. Dec. 785; Territory v. Delinquent Tax List (Arizona, 1887), 21 Pac. Rep. 888; Young v. Lorain, 11 Ill. 637; Kinney v. Forsythe, 96 Mo. 414. Where power to maintain an action for taxes is conferred upon a court of special and limited jurisdiction, the powers conferred are special and limited; and to sustain a decree, the record must affirmatively show jurisdiction both of the subject-matter and of the person. Carlisle v. Watts, 78 Ala. 486. 9. Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn._394; Gilfillan v. Hobart, 34 Minn. 67; Chesnut v. Marsh, 12 Ill. 173; Mix v. People, 81 Ill. 118. And see Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 138; German-American Bank v. White, 38 Minn. 471. ment may be amended as to matters of form and immaterial The judgment must be certain,2 and must correspond in amount with the delinquent tax specified in the return, notice, or complaint. The amount for which the judgment is rendered must appear from the judgment itself, without reference to other sources.4 The judgment must describe the lands against which it is rendered. Usually the description must conform to that of the A judgment subjecting the lands of non-residents to sale for the payment of delinquent taxes, which follows the form prescribed by statute, and recites that notice has been given as required by law, is sufficient, even though the landowner was entitled to notice by publication in a newspaper published in the county in which the lands lie. Driggers v. Čassady, 71 Ala. 529. Mere irregularities and formal defects will not vitiate the judgment, if it is substantially correct. Chesnut v. Marsh, 12 Ill. 173. Name of Defendant.-A material mistake in the name of the defendant is fatal to the judgment. Simonson v. Dolan, 114 Mo. 176. Time of Payment.-In Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265, it was held that a decree of foreclosure of a tax lien should fix a certain time within which the amount found due may be paid, so that the parties interested may make payment, and thus avoid a sale. 1. Atkins v. Hinman, 7 Ill. 437. In Walsh v. People, 79 Ill. 521, it was held that in proceedings for judgment against delinquent lands for taxes, all amendments which could be made by law, in any ordinary action, may be allowed. 2. Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, 53 Ill. 80. And see Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610; People v. San Francisco Sav. Union, 31 Cal. 132; Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Ill. 210; Cook v. Norton, 43 Ill. 391; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 143; Eppinger v. Kirby, 23 Ill. 521; 76 Am. Dec. 709; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; 71 Am. Dec. 274; Randolph v. Metcalf, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 400. 3. People v. Nichols, 49 Ill. 517; Pitkin v. Yaw, 13 Ill. 251; Gage v. Williams, 119 Ill. 563; McLaughlin v. Thompson, 55 Ill. 249; Elsey v. Falconer, 56 Ark. 419. And see Alexandria v. Chapman, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 270; Mann v. People, 102 Ill. 346. In Jackson v. Cummings, 15 Ill. 449, it was held that a difference of a quarter of a cent between the delinquent list and the judgment, will not vitiate the proceedings, where all the particulars are truly described. And in Drake v. Ogden, 128 Ill. 603, it was held that an illegal item in a tax judgment will invalidate a sale thereunder, even though it constitutes a very small portion of the judgment. Costs may be Added.-In Merritt v. Thompson, 13 Ill. 716, it was held that it is not improper, in a suit for taxes, to enter a judgment for costs generally, as in ordinary cases; and in case of such entry of judgment, it will be regarded as a judgment for such amount of costs as are legally chargeable against the land. 4. Eppinger v. Kirby, 23 Ill. 521; 76 Am. Dec. 709; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; 71 Am. Dec. 274; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 143; People v. San Francisco Sav. Union, 31 Cal. 132; Woods v. Freeman, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 398. And see Merritt v. Thompson, 13 Ill. 716; Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 138. Mere numerals in the judgment, without some mark indicating that they stand for money, are insufficient. Woods v. Freeman, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 398; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 143; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; 71 Am. Dec. 274; Baily v. Doolittle, 24 Ill. 577; Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Ill. 210; Potwin v. Oades, 45 Ill. 366; Eppinger v. Kirby, 23 Ill. 521; 76 Am. Dec. 709; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, 53 Ill. 80; Elston v. Kennicott, 46 III. 187; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 201. But see State v. Eureka, etc., Min. Co., 8 Nev. 15; Cahoon v. Coe, 52 N. H. 518. 5. Sanford v. People, 102 Ill. 374 People v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 96 Ill. 369; People v. Dragstran, 100 Ill. 286; Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529. And see Bower v. O'Donnall, 29 Minn. 135; 1 assessment and other previous proceedings. Although not technically correct, if the description is that by which the land is commonly known, it may be sufficient.2 Latent ambiguities may be cured by extrinsic evidence.3 Where the interests of different persons have been assessed separately, and some have paid the taxes as assessed, the judgment should designate the different interests. The judgment should be against each lot or parcel of land assessed, and not against several parcels in the aggregate, though it has been held that a defect in this respect does not go to the jurisdiction. Kipp v. Fernhold, 37 Minn. 132; Keith v. Hayden, 26 Minn. 212; State v. Hunter, 98 Mo. 386. It is sufficient if the description is such that the land can be located by one acquainted with plats and surveys. Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262. And see Nance v. Hopkins, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 508. Figures and abbreviations may be used to designate lands against which judgment for taxes is asked, but they must be so certain that the definite locality can be given them. Olcott v. State, 10 Ill. 481. A bill to correct defective description will not lie. Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265. 1. Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Smith v. State, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 65; Feller v. Clark, 36 Minn. 338. And see Henderson v. White, 69 Tex. 103; McCormick v. Edwards, 69 Tex. 106; Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173. In Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570, it was held that there is no variance where the judgment describes a third part of a tract and the delinquent list describes the whole tract, the presumption being that the taxes had been paid upon the remaining two-thirds, before judgment. 2. Gilfillan v. Hobart, 34 Minn. 67; St. Peter's Church v. Scott County, 12 Minn. 280; Stewart v. Colter, 31 Minn. 385. In Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409, it was held that if the judgment describing the lands to be sold for taxes, shows the year for which the taxes are due, it is sufficient, and need not show the name of the patentee or owner, nor the valuation, nor the county in which it lies. 3. Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529. Parol evidence has been allowed in aid of the identification of the property taxed, thus rendering certain what might otherwise be ambiguous. Ellis v. Mar tin, 60 Ala. 394; Clements v. Pearce, 63 Ala. 284; People v. Leet, 23 Cal. 162; People v. Crockett, 33 Cal. 150. In Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262, it was held that an imperfect description of land contained either in a tax bill, judgment, execution, or sheriff's deed, may be made certain by extrinsic evidence, if the ambiguity is latent and susceptible of explanation. 4. People v. Shimmins, 42 Cal. 121. In State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502, it was held to be error to enter judgment for the whole amount of the tax, upon a credit consisting of a part of the purchase price of land formerly owned in common, against those only who were served and have appeared. 5. Pitkin v. Yaw, 13 Ill. 251; Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265; Olcott v. State, 10 Ill. 481; Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262; II Mo. App. 226; Howard v. Stevenson, 11 Mo. App. 410; State v. Kerr, 8 Mo. App. 125; State v. Illinois, etc., R. Co., 8 Mo. App. 599, note; Brockschmidt v. Cavender, 3 Mo. App. 568, note; Edmonson v. Galveston, 53 Tex. 157. And see Kipp v. Fernhold, 37 Minn. 132; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, 47 Ark. 323. Where the judgment reserves the findings for the particulars as to the amount charged as a lien on each tract, it is sufficient. State v. Hunter, 98 Mo. 386. A judgment that certain lands be sold for taxes assessed against them, amounts to a finding of the tax due on each tract. Mix v. People, 81 Ill. 118. Description. If the description as to one or more of several tracts is void for uncertainty, a decree will be erroneous, and the uncertainty will vitiate the sale as to the other tracts. Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265. 6. Brown v. Walker, 11 Mo. App. 226; 85 Mo. 262; Jones v. Driskill, 94 Mo. 190; State v. Kerr, 8 Mo. App. 125. And see Howard v. Stevenson, 11 Mo. App. 410; State v. Hunter, 98 Mo. 386. (c) Penalties and Costs. Where the recovery of the penalty, as well as the tax, is expressly authorized, it may be included in the judgment as a part of the amount recovered.2 It has been held that provisions allowing costs against the taxpayer are not unconstitutional.3 Only such costs can be allowed as are provided for by statute.4 (d) Validity and Effect. The validity of a judgment in a tax suit is determined by the rules which govern a judgment in an ordinary action; the judgment is subject to the same mode of attack,5 and the same presumptions are indulged in its favor. If the court has jurisdiction, it is as binding upon the parties as any other judgment. It is conclusive, and not subject to collateral The title of a purchaser under such a judgment, is not affected. Jones v. Driskill, 94 Mo. 190. In Job v. Tebbetts, 10 Ill. 376, it was held that a precept issued upon a judgment against lands for taxes, need not contain a list of the lands ordered to be sold. See also Manly v. Gibson, 14 Ill. 136. 1. See People v. Todd, 23 Cal. 181; People v. Smith, 94 Ill. 226. 2. Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587; People v. Smith, 94 III. 226; State v. California Min. Co., 15 Nev. 234; State v. California Min. Co., 15 Nev. 259; Potts v. Cooley, 56 Wis. 45; Arnold v. Juneau County, 43 Wis. 627. 3. People v. Seymour, 16 Cal. 332; 76 Am. Dec. 521. And see State v. California Min. Co., 13 Nev. 289; Cheever v. Merritt, 5 Allen (Mass.) 563. In State v. Illinois, etc., Bridge Co., 8 Mo. App. 599, it was held that collectors' and attorneys' fees are properly charged as costs, in a suit to enforce a lien for taxes, though the taxes, interest, and court costs are paid after the suit and before the sale. Costs not Allowed Defendant. - In People v. Moore, 1 Idaho 662, it was held that in a suit for taxes, although the defendant recovers, the judgment should be general, without costs. 4. See Potts v. Cooley, 56 Wis. 45; Kent v. Atlantic De Laine Co., 8 R. to costs up to and including the condemnation only. 5. Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391; 94 Am. Dec. 742; Mayo . Ah Loy, 32 Cal. 477; Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262; Hogan v. Smith, II Mo. App. 314. 6. Allen v. McCabe, 93 Mo. 138; Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262; Hogan v. Smith, 11 Mo. App. 314; Willshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343; Werz v. Werz, II Mo. App. 26; McCarter v. Neil, 50 Ark. 188; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391; 94 Am. Dec. 742; McGregor v. Morrow, 40 Kan. 730; Pritchard v. Madren, 31 Kan. 52; Mix v. People, 81 Ill. 118; Pulaski v. Stewart, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 879; Falkner v. Guild, 10 Wis. 572; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 332. No extraordinary or special power of jurisdiction is conferred upon courts, by giving them jurisdiction in tax cases. It is merely an additional remedy or cause of action, by which they may, on certain conditions, foreclose a tax lien. English v. Woodman, 40 Kan. 412; McGregor v. Morrow, 40 Kan. 730. In English v. Woodman, 40 Kan. 412, it was held that the jurisdiction of the court to render judgment, is not affected by an omission to file proof of service of notice by publication, and obtain its approval by the court, where such publication was actually made. 7. Warren v. Cook, 116 Ill. 199; Graceland Cemetery Co. v. People, 92 Ill. 619; Buckmaster v. Carlin, 4 Ill. 104; Swiggart v. Harter, 5 Ill. 364; Buckmaster v. Ryder, 12 Ill. 207; Wimberly v. Hurst, 33 Ill. 166; 87 Am. Dec. 295; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Mayo v. Ah Loy, 32 Cal. 477; English v. Woodman, 40 Kan. 412. Brown v. Hogle, 30 Ill. 119; Gray v. Bowles, 74 Mo. 419; State v. Sargent, 12 Mo. App. 228; Young v. Lorain, II And see attack.1 But want of jurisdiction invalidates it, and may be shown; and if the tax is void, the judgment also may be Ill. 624; Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343; Swan v. Knoxville, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 130. Former proceedings for taxes for years prior to those involved in a proceeding of the present year, though presenting the same questions, are not to be deemed res adjudicata as to the present year. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. People, 46 Mich. 193. Personal Judgment Precludes Sale.After the personal judgment for taxes has been rendered, the tax debtor cannot inaugurate the proceedings to have his land sold to the highest bidder, and thereby relieve himself from personal liability to pay the taxes. Byrne v. La Salle, 123 Ill. 581. Change of the Law.-Where a statute, under which a decree for taxes was rendered, is repealed, and other taxes are levied under subsequent statutes, the decree cannot be admitted as an estoppel in an action for the recovery of subsequent taxes. Davenport v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 38 Iowa 632. And see Richman v. Muscatine County, 77 Iowa 513. 1. Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265; Graceland Cemetery Co. v. People, 92 Ill. 619: Job v. Tebbetts, 10 Ill. 376; Drake v. Ogden, 128 Ill. 603; People v. Smith, 94 Ill. 226; Rigg v. Cook, 9 Ill. 336; 46 Am. Dec. 462; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Riddle v. Messer, 84 Ala. 236; Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439; Mayo v. Ah Loy, 32 Cal. 477; Hogan v. Smith, 11 Mo. App. 314; Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343; Jones v. Driskill, 94 Mo. 190; Kent v. Brown, 38 La. Ann. 802; Aplin v. Sloman, 84 Mich. 118. And see McCarter v. Neil, 50 Ark. 188; Chesnut v. Marsh, 12 Ill. 173; People v. Smith, 94 Ill. 226; Chicago Theological Seminary v. Gage, 12 Fed. Rep. 398. The fact that a single judgment was rendered against distinct lands in back tax suit, cannot be shown by parol evidence in an ejectment suit for the purpose of impeaching the judgment. Brown v. Walker, 85 Mo. 262. a The validity of a judgment rendered in a tax suit cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding, by showing that a portion of the taxes sued for were barred by the Statute of Limitations. Wellshear v. Kelley, 69 Mo. 343. The amount of costs on a tax sale cannot be made a question, when the judgment comes collaterally in issue. Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 IlI. 409. And see Merritt v. Thompson, 13 Ill. 716. In Glass v. White, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 475, it was held that a provision making all the judgments or orders of sale for taxes, conclusive, unless it was shown that the taxes were duly paid before such judgment or order of sale was rendered, embraces public taxes only, and has no application to tax sales by municipal corporations. 2. Brown v. Hogle, 30 Ill. 119; Buckmaster v. Carlin, 4 Ill. 104; Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 409; Fleming v. McGee, 81 Ala. 409; Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn. 394. And see Pickett v. Hartsock, 15 Ill. 282; Morgan v. Camp, 16 Ill. 175; Fortman v. Ruggles, 58 Ill. 207; McGregor v. Morrow, 40 Kan. 730; English v. Woodman, 40 Kan. 412; Vaughan v. Daniels, 98 Mo. 230; Vaughan v. Moyer (Mo. 1889), 11 S. W. Rep. 574; Voorhees v. Bank of U. S., 10 Pet. (U. S.) 468; Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 162; Kemp v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 173. Want of jurisdiction of the court, to render a tax judgment, may be shown by evidence de hors the record. Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508; Chauncey v. Wass, 35 Minn. 1; Eastman v. Linn, 26 Minn. 215. In Biggins v. People, 106 Ill. 270, it was held that a decree dismissing a bill to enforce a lien for taxes for want of jurisdiction, does not bar a second bill filed for the same purpose, after the enactment of a law conferring the jurisdiction. Presumption of Jurisdiction. The judgment raised a presumption of jurisdiction in the court, which can be overcome only by proof that it had no jurisdiction. Kipp v. Collins, 33 Minn. 394. And see Prout v. People, 83 Ill. 154. In Williams v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 524, it was held that the omission to name one of the years for which the taxes were due and for which suit was brought from the order of publication, will not affect the judgment when attacked in a collateral proceeding. A recital in a decree under the California statute, that all the owners and claimants of the property have been duly summoned and have made default, is conclusive that the court acquired jurisdiction, if nothing contradictory to |