erty in his list, he is not estopped from claiming an abatement therefor.1 C. THE ROLL-(1) Form and Contents Generally.-It is essential to the validity of an assessment that a roll or list should be kept, in which it is the duty of the assessor to enter a description of all the taxable property which he can discover in his jurisdic tion, together with the name of the person owning each parcel, and its value.2 The intentional omission by the assessors of taxable property from the list or roll, has been held in some states to vitiate the whole tax levied upon the roll from the district in which it occurs; and this notwithstanding that the assessor in good faith believed the property omitted to be exempt.3 But American Union Express Co. v. St. Joseph, 66 Mo. 675; 27 Am. Rep. 382. The omission by a party's agent of one parcel of land, in consequence whereof the same is taxed as the property of a non-resident, affords the owner no ground for complaint. Kinsworthy_v. Mitchell, 21 Ark. 145; Nelson v. Pierce, 6 N. H. 194. But an erroneous return of property for assessment in one district when it is situated in another, will not estop the owner to deny the validity of an assessment on the property made by the assessor of the district in which the property is situated. State v. Bellew (Wis. 1893), 56 N. W. Rep. 782. If the valuation adopted by the assessor is not based upon the return made by the taxpayer, he is not estopped by it. Dunnell Mfg. Co. v. Pawtucket, 7 Gray (Mass.) 277. A guardian who has listed the property of his ward, is not estopped from showing the death of the ward and the listing of the property by his personal representative. Sommers v. Boyd, 48 Ohio St. 648. 1. Charlestown v. Middlesex County, 109 Mass. 270; Dunnell Mfg. Co. v. Pawtucket, 7 Gray (Mass.) 277; Salter v. Burlington, 42 Iowa 531. And see Phillips v. Shuster, 47 Conn. 477. But see Republic L. Ins. Co. v. Pollak, 75 Ill. 292. In Telle v. Green, 28 Ind. 184, it was held that if the erroneous inclusion of non-taxable property was through mistake of law, no relief can be had. 2. Thurston v. Little, 3 Mass. 429; Thayer v. Stearns, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 482; Bailey v. Ackerman, 54 N. H. 527; People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516; Trowbridge v. Horan, 78 N. Y. 489; Howard v. Shumway, 13 Vt. 358; Roe v. St. John, 7 Neb. 139; O'Neal v. Virginia, etc., Bridge Co., 18 Md. 1; 79 Am. Dec. 669. See also People v. Stockton, etc., R. Co., 49 Cal. 414. The list must be perfect in itself without reference to a former list, and all property must be entered in the current list in order that taxes may be enforced against it. Downing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. 441. Two rolls may be provided, each being required to contain a designated class of assessments. See Folkert v. Power, 42 Mich. 283. In Noyes v. Hale, 137 Mass. 266, it was held that the entry of property in a separate book or paper complied with the statute. See also Morrill v. Douglas, 14 Kan. 293; Thomas v. Chapin, 116 Mo. 396. State, county, and town taxes are usually required to be assessed separately and put into separate lists. Thayer v. Stearns, I Pick. (Mass.) 482; State v. Falkinburge, 15 N. J. L. 320. And see State v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. 166. 3. Hersey v. Milwaukee County, 16 Wis. 195; 82 Am. Dec. 713; Smith v. Smith, 19 Wis. 615; 88 Am. Dec. 707; Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v.Outagamie County, 76 Wis. 586; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51; Semple v. Langlade County, 75 Wis. 354; Brauns v. Green Bay, 55 Wis. 113; State v. Platt, 24 N. J. L. 108; State v. Branin, 23 N. J. L. 484; Walsh v. King, 74 Mich. 354; Merrill v. Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170; Auditor Gen'l v. Jenkinson, 90 Mich. 523; Auditor Gen'l v. Prescott, 94 Mich. 190. And see Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf.. (U. S.) 175. In Illinois, in Dunham v. Chicago, 55 Ill. 357, and Merritt v. Farris, 22 Ill. 303, it has been held that the rule is where the officer has endeavored to carry out the provisions of the statute, and the omission is unintentional, it will not affect the validity of the tax levied upon the assessment.1 It is generally provided that the assessment roll shall be arranged in columns; that in the first column the names of all the taxable inhabitants are to be put down; in the second, the quantity, and in the third the value of the land. The provisions, however, differ as to order and number of columns, but in any case the statute must be substantially complied with.2 Unless otherwise. And see Spencer v. People, 68 Ill. 513; and to the same effect in Massachusetts, see Williams v. School Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 75; 32 Am. Dec. 243; George v. Second School Dist., 6 Met. (Mass.) 497. In Johnston v. Oshkosh, 65 Wis. 473, it was held that where the assessors omitted taxable property, believing it to be exempt, the taxes assessed on the roll were invalid. But in Hersey v. Milwaukee County, 16 Wis. 185; 82 Am. Dec. 713, it was held that the omission of property liable to taxes in one ward did not invalidate ward taxes levied according to such assessment roll on property situated in another ward. In Hyatt v. Allen, 54 Cal. 353, it was held that a taxpayer was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the assessor to assess property subject to taxation. 1. Smith v. Smith, 19 Wis. 615; 88 Am. Dec. 707; Weeks v. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 186; Hersey v. Milwaukee County, 16 Wis. 195; 82 Am. Dec. 713; Dean v. Gleason, 16 Wis. 1; Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 599; Lefferts v. Calumet County, 21 Wis. 688; Plumer v. Marathon County, 46 Wis. 163; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51; People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 432; Puget Sound Agricultural Soc. v. Pierce County, 1 Wash. Ter. 159; Dunham v. Chicago, 55 Ill. 361; Spencer v. People, 68 Ill. 510; Schofield v. Watkins, 22 Ill. 66; Merrett v. Farris, 22 Ill. 311; New Orleans v. Davidson, 30 La. Ann. 554; 31 Am. Rep. 228; Williams v. School Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 75; 32 Am. Dec. 243; Watson v. Princeton, 4 Met. (Mass.) 602; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1; Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H. 420; State v. Platt, 24 N. J. L. 108; State v. Randolph, 25 N. J. L. 431; People v. Assessors, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 196; Goddard v. Stockman, 74 Ind. 400; Insurance Co. v.Yard, 17 Pa. St. 331; Capwell v. Hopkins, 10 In Perry County v. Selma, etc., R. Co., 65 Ala. 391, it was held that property omitted from the assessment roll is not thereby relieved from liability for the tax. The presumption that a public officer has done his duty, applies to an assessor who has omitted lands from assessment, if the facts as shown do not exclude it. Perkins v. Nugent, 45 Mich. 156. Private information by a single member of the board of assessors that property has been omitted from the last assessment, is not chargeable to the board. Noyes v. Hale, 137 Mass. 266. 2. Trowbridge v. Horan, 78 N. Y. 439; Knott v. Peden, 84 Cal. 299; People v. Hollister, 47 Cal. 408; Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co., 33 Ind. 268; Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. (U.S.) 175; The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 505. And see Smith v. Hard, 61 Vt. 469; State v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. (Mo. 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 910. But see Torrey v. Millbury, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 64; Insurance Co. v. Yard, 17 Pa. St. 331; Lewis v. Eastford, 44 Conn. 477. Wherever the specific statutory requisites are material, they must be strictly construed. People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516. In Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Rep. 417, it was held that noncompliance with a statute requiring the names of the shareholders of a national bank to be placed upon the roll, vitiated the tax, although a separate list was kept showing the names and numbers of shares. Where the name appears in the proper column, it does not matter if the the omission of words or marks indicating dollars and cents tends to mislead the owner, the assessment is not vitiated thereby.1 (2) Designation of the Person Taxed. The person taxed must be designated in the roll with certainty.2 In order to hold a taxpayer personally liable, the tax must be charged against him directly and properly.3 Property is to be listed against the owner or other person primarily liable, where his name can be ascertained, and if assessed name extends beyond the line of that column. People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Min. Co., 39 Cal. 371. In New York, the value of personal property must be placed in a fourth column. People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516. The rate per cent. and the amount of the tax assessed are in some states placed in another column. State v. Perkins, 24 N. J. L. 409; State v. Sloss, 87 Ala. 119; Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co., 33 Ind. 268. Formal Errors or omissions.-But the omission to comply with a merely formal requisite directory in its nature, does not invalidate the assessment. See Downing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. 441; Henry v. Chester, 15 Vt. 460; Stearns v. Miller, 25 Vt. 20; State v. Bishop,. 34 N. J. L. 45; State v. Manning, 41 N. J. L. 275; Thomas v. Chapin, 116 Mo. 396; Torrey v. Millbury, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 64; Blackburn v. Walpole, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 97; Pacific Hotel Co. v. Leib, 83 Ill. 604; Wall v. Trumbull, 16 Mich. 228. In People v. Clapp (Supreme Ct.), 19 N. Y. Supp. 531, it was held that the assessment roll need not be in a single volume or collection of sheets united together, if they are united when finally completed with the verification attached. 1. Jenkins v. McTigue, 22 Fed. Rep. 148. And see San Luis Obispo County v. White (Cal. 1890), 24 Pac. Rep. 864; Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 444; State v. Allen, 43 Ill. 456; Elston v. Kennicott, 46 Ill. 187; Chickering v. Faile, 38 Ill. 342; Jackson v. Cummings, 15 Ill. 449; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28; First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526; State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13; Ward v. Gallatin County, 12 Mont. 23; Ensign v. Barse, 107 N. Y. 329; Chamberlain v. Taylor, 36 Hun (N. Y.)_24; Hopkins v. Young, 15 R. I. 48; Spokane Falls v. Browne, 3 Wash. 84; Sawyer v. Gleason, 59 N. H. 140. The abbreviation "dolls." is equiva lent to the word "dollars." Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223. Where the dollar mark is placed at the head of the column, it is not necessary that it should be prefixed to each item. State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13. In re Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 315, it was held that the omission of anything to indicate whether the figures represented dollars or cents, invalidated the assessment. See also Tilton v. Oregon Cent., etc., Road Co., 3 Sawyer (U. S.) 22; Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 444. 2. Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; Dowell v. Portland, 13 Oregon 248; Albany City Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 175; Hayes v. Viator, 33 La. Ann. 1162; Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367; Whitney v. Thomas, 23 N. Y. 281; Evans v. Newell (R. I. 1892), 25 Atl. Rep. 347; Philadelphia v. Miller, 49 Pa. St. 440; Putnam v. Tyler, 117 Pa. St. 570; Lyman v. Philadelphia, 56 Pa. St. 488. Where the statute requires money in court to be assessed to the treasurer, assessment to the plaintiff is invalid. San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, 87 Cal. 499. In Crawford v. Schmidt, 47 Cal. 617, it was held that the designation of the owner by his surname alone was insufficient. The name of the owner or occupant must appear on the assessment roll. Dubois v. Webster, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 371. 3. See Jefferson v. Mock, 74 Mo. 61;. State v. Gibson, 12 Mo. App. 1; People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank, etc., Min. Co., 66 Cal. 17; Bell v. Barnard, 37 Ill. App. 275; State v. Sloss, 87 Ala. 119; Wheeler v. Bramel (Ky. 1888), 8 S. W. Rep. 199. In Parker v. Cochran, 64 Iowa 757, it was held that where taxes on land were duly assessed to the owner, the omission of the owner's name in transcribing the tax into a tax list does not invalidate the assessment. 4. Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367. to another or to persons unknown, the tax is void. But the assessor, when unable to discover who is liable for the tax, may assess it to unknown owners.2 If the owner's name could have been ascertained from public records or otherwise, however, the property cannot be assessed to unknown owners.3 Statutes providing that an assessment made in the name of some other than the true owner shall not be invalid, and that any error in the name of the person taxed shall not vitiate the assessment, are not infrequent, and their constitutionality has been upheld.4 And see Pease v. Whitney, 5 Mass. 380; Meyer v. Trubee, 59 Čonn. 422; Willard v. Blount, 11 Ired. (N. Car.) 624; Madison v. Whitney, 21 Ind. 261; Springfield v. First Nat. Bank, 87 Mo. 441; Henkle v. Keota, 68 Iowa 334; Bird v. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 664. An assessment made to a person by name is to be deemed an assessment to him as owner. Blatner . Davis, 32 Cal. 328. 1. Le Blanc v. Blodgett, 34 La. Ann. 107; Denegre v. Gerac, 35 La. Ann. 952; Maspereau 7. New Orleans, 38 La. Ann. 400; Workingmen's. Bank v. Lannes, 30 La. Ann. 871; Norres v. Hays, 44 La. Ann. 907; Dowell v. Portland, 13 Oregon 248; Redmund v. Banks, 60 Miss. 293; Philadelphia 7. Miller, 49 Pa. St. 440; Baer v. Choir (Wash. 1893), 32 Pac. Rep. 776; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51; Hecht v. Boughton, 2 Wyoming 368; Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. Rep. 69; Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me. 359; Bidleman v. Brooks, 28 Cal. 72; Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; Lassitter v. Lee, 68 Ala. 287; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162; State v. Gibson, 12 Mo. App. 1; Barker v. Blake, 36 Me. 433; Picotter v. Whaley, 80 Mich. 257; State v. Vanderbilt, 33 N. J. L. 38; Smith v. Read, 51 Conn. 10; Thompson v. Ela, 60 N. H. 562; Perham v. Haverhill Fibre Co., 64 N. H. 2; Burpee v. Russell, 64 N. H. 62; Crook v. Anniston City Land Co., 93 Ala. 4; Klumpke v. Baker, 68 Cal. 559; Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal. 365; Newell v. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486; Whitney v. Thomas, 23 N. Y. 281; Zink v. McManus (Supreme Ct.), 3 N. Y. Supp. 487; Desmond v. Babbitt, 117 Mass. 233; Lynde v. Brown, 143 Mass. 337; L'Engle v. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 21 Fla. 353; People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591; Sargent v. Bean, 7 Gray (Mass.) 125. Such an assessment is equivalent to an entire omission of the name. People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591; Lewis v. Withers, 44 Fed. Rep. 165; Johnson v. M'Intire, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 295; Wheeler v. Bramel (Ky. 1888), 8 S. W. Rep. 199; Baskins v. Doe, 24 Miss. 431. Compare Clifton Heights Land Co. v. Randell, 82 Iowa 89. Thus, if property is assessed in the name of the agent of the owner, the interest of the owner is not covered by the lien. Meyer v. Trubee, 59 Conn. 422. And where land is not assessed to the owner, and is knocked down to the state at a tax sale, the state takes nothing. McWilliams v. Michel, 43 La. Ann. 984. A statute limiting the right of the former owner to redeem to one year, has no application where the land is not assessed to the owner. Bird v. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 664. And see Davenport v. Knox, 34 La. Ann. 407; Person v. O'Neal, 32 La. Ann. 228. 2. Robinson v. Williams (La. 1893), 12 So. Rep. 499. And see Bird v. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 664; Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. Rep. 69. 3. Barker v. Hesseltine, 27 Me. 354And see Oliver v. Robinson, 58 Ala. 46; Klumpke v. Baker, 68 Cal. 559; Meyer v. Trubee, 59 Conn. 422; Nichols v. McGlathery, 43 Iowa 189; Sutton v. Calhoun, 14 La. Ann. 205; Rapp v. Lowrey, 30 La. Ann. 1272; Perham v. Haverhill Fibre Co., 64 N. H. 2. But see Corning Town Co. v. Davis, 44 Iowa 622; State v. Hurt, 113 Mo. 90. The knowledge of one assessor as to ownership will be imputed to all. Thompson v. Gerrish, 57 N. H. 85. An assessor can demand of a warehouseman the ownership of property in his possession. Bode v. Holtz, 65 Cal. 106. 4. See Stilz v. Indianapolis, 81 Ind. 582; Schrodt v. Deputy, 88 Ind. 90; Small v. Lawrenceburgh, 28 Ind. 231; Merrick v. Hutt, 15 Ark. 331; Garibaldi v. Jenkins, 27 Ark. 453; Kinsworthy v. Mitchell, 21 Ark. 145; Landregan v. Peppin, 86 Cal. 122; Peo The assessment cannot be made to the owner or occupant in the alternative, nor to them collectively. It must be definitely to the one or the other.2 Where the assessment is to unknown owners, it is not necessary that the assessor should state in his list that it is so assessed because the owner is unknown. Where the owner is not named, it will be presumed that he is unknown. This upon the general presumption that a public officer has done his duty.3 In assessing property to a trustee,4 agent,5 executor, or other ple v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533; Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 346; Haight v. New York, 99 N. Y. 280; Collins v. Long Island City, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 647; People v. Barker, 67 Hun (N. Y.) 649; State v. Matthews, 40 N. J. L. 269; State v. Vanderbilt, 33 N. J. L. 38; Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367; Bradley v. Bouchard, 85 Mich. 18; Petrie Lumber Co. v. Collins, 66 Mich. 64; Michigan Dairy Co. v. McKinlay, 70 Mich. 574; Hill v. Graham, 72 Mich. 659; Strauch v. Shoemaker, I W. & S. (Pa.) 166; Glass v. Gilbert, 58 Pa. St. 266; Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss. 135. Under the Indiana statute, the fact that a wife's land was charged in the name of the husband, does not invalidate the assessment. Helms v. Wagner, 102 Ind. 385. In Tyler v. Hardwick, 6 Met. (Mass.) 470, it was held that the statute applied to a person whose surname only was inserted in the assessment, and that, provided the party was taxable and could be identified by the assessors, no error in the name would invalidate the tax. See also Westhampton v. Searle, 127 Mass. 502. In Collins v. Long Island City, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 647, it was held that under such a statute, an assessment of land of non-residents was not vitiated by being assessed to unknown owners. 1. Pearson v. Creed, 78 Cal. 144; Greenwood v. Adams, So Cal. 74; Jatum v. O'Brien, 89 Cal. 57; Daly v. Ah Goon, 64 Cal. 512; Grinn v. O'Connell, 54 Cal. 522; Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal. 365; Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666; Stafford v. Twitchell, 33 La. Ann. 520. And see Bosworth v. Webster, 64 Cal. 1; Brunn v. Murphy, 29 Cal. 326. In California, an assessment to the owner and all claimants is invalid. Daly v. Ah Goon, 64 Cal. 512; Brady v. Dowden, 59 Cal. 51; Pierson v. Creed, 78 Cal. 144; Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal. 365. But where the land is assessed to the owner, the general heading of the assessment roll "to all owners, claimants, known or unknown, etc.," will not vitiate it. Bosworth v. Webster, 64 Cal. 1; San Francisco v. Phelan, 61 Cal. 617. 2. Dubois v. Webster, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 371; Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal. 666; Sargent v. Bean, 7 Gray (Mass.) 125. And see People v. Wemple, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 197. But in whosesoever name the assessment is, the succeeding steps must be in the same name; viz., in the advertisement and sale. Bettirson v. Budd, 21 Ark. 578. See also Shimmin v. Inman, 26 Me. 232; Watt v. Gilgore, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 330. 3. Cardigan v. Page, 6 N. H. 182; Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H. 420; Merritt v. Thompson, 13 Ill. 716; Corning Town Co. v. Davis, 44 Iowa 622; Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me. 359; Jenkins v. McTigue, 22 Fed. Rep. 148; Jackson v. Cummings, 15 Ill. 449; Burdick v. Connell, 69 Iowa 458; Griffin v. Tuttle, 74 Iowa 219. The fact that the owner was known to the purchaser at the tax sale is immaterial. Lassitter v. Lee, 68 Ala. 287. In California, it is necessary, where lands are assessed to unknown owners, that the assessor should state in his list that it was so assessed because it was unoccupied and the owner unknown. Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 38; 85 Am. Dec. 94; Smith v. Davis, 30 Cal. 536. But compare Brunn v. Murphy, 29 Cal. 326. 4. Trowbridge v. Horan, 78 N. Y. 439; Hardy v. Yarmouth, 6 Allen (Mass.) 277; Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13; People v. Coleman, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 482. 5. See Welles v. Battelle, 1 Mass. 477; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank, etc., Min. Co., 68 Cal. 14; Meyer v. Trubee, 59 Conn. 422; People v. Coleman, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 482. |