that they will receive taxes from no one but the owner in person, and thus cut off the title by a sale which would not have been necessary had the owner's agent made tender of the amount of the tax, which he refrained from doing because of the rule. U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196; Bennett 7. Hunter, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 326; Tracey v. Irwin, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 549; Atwood v. Weems, 99 U. S. 183.

A principal can claim the benefit of a tax paid by his agent without reference to the state of accounts between them. Rand v. Scofield, 43 Ill. 167.

1. U. S. v. Tilden, 9 Ben. (U. S.) 368; Cole v. Wright, 70 Ind. 179; Blackwood v. Van Vleit, 30 Mich. 118; Brown v. Day, 78 Pa. St. 129.

The payment of taxes by any person extinguishes them. Morrison v. Kelly, 22 Ill. 610. And see Wilbert v. Michel, 42 La. Ann. 853. See also Mason v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 420, where taxes on land were paid by mistake by one not the owner, who, on discovering the error got the money refunded, but it was nevertheless, held to operate as a payment.

As the duties of tax officers are ministerial, they cannot decide upon the claim of one offering to pay a tax and claiming to have an interest in the land, but must accept payment. Iowa R. Land Co. v. Guthrie, 53 Iowa 383.

A mortgagee may presume taxes to have been legally assessed and pay them without inquiry as to their validity, unless notified to the contrary. Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547; 58 Am. Dec. 729.

2. Cole v. Wright, 70 Ind. 179; Brown v. Evans, 15 Kan. 88; Lillie v. Case, 54 Iowa 177; Erwin's Succession, 16 La. Ann. 132; Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 513.

A lien is sometimes given upon the property to secure such reimbursement. Peay v. Field, 30 Ark. 600; Borthell v. Syverson, 54 Iowa 160; Lillie v. Case, 54 Iowa 177; Cole v. Wright, 70 Ind. 179; Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547; 58 Am Dec. 729.

When taxes have been paid by a surety, the lien may be kept alive for his benefit, and a tenant or stranger whose goods have been taken to pay taxes, will be treated as a surety. Wallace's Estate, 59 Pa. St. 401. But the

right exists only against the owner at the time of the assessment, or some other person primarily liable for its payment. See Henry . Horstick, 9 Watts (Pa.) 412.

Reimbursement of Mortgagee.—Where mortgaged premises are assessed in connection with other premises of the mortgagor, and the mortgagee, to prevent a forfeiture, pays the whole tax, he can have the whole amount included in his judgment upon the mortgage. Williams v. Hilton, 35 Me. 547; 58 Am. Dec. 729. But in Savage v. Scott, 45 Iowa 130, it was held that there must be an agreement between the parties to that effect, in the absence of facts and equities which would require a court of chancery to make such a provision. But see also Borthell v. Syverson, 54 Iowa 164, where that decision is strictly confined to the facts of that case.

Right to Contribution of Co-tenant Paying Tax.—Where payment is made by one co-tenant, he can look to the others for contribution. Chickering v. Faile, 38 Ill. 343. But under the New Hamsphire statute he cannot call on the others for contribution, unless the sheriff, acting as collector, has first delivered a copy of his tax list to the deputy secretary. Homer v. Cilley, 14 N. H.85.

A mere volunteer who pays the taxes of another can acquire no lien or other right against the property. Peay v. Field, 30 Ark. 600. And see Hoffman v. Bell, 61 Pa. St. 444; Crum v. Burke, 25 Pa. St. 377. And tax officers may doubtless refuse to receive taxes from a mere volunteer who claims no interest in the lands, and as such, offers to pay them for the purpose of acquiring a right against the owner. Iowa R. Land Co. v. Guthrie, 53 Iowa 383.

Payments made for the purpose of sustaining tax titles or to bar a redemption thereof, must be under claim and color of title. Chickering v. Faile, 38 Il. 342; Cofield v. Furry, 19 Ill. 183; Dawley v. Van Court, 21 Ill. 460; Darst v. Marshall, 20 Ill. 227. And see Hardin v. Coate, 78 Ill. 533.

As a rule, every taxpayer has the right, as between himself and third persons, to pay his own taxes, and to pay them to the county in which they are due, and not be compelled to run after a self-substituted creditor and

shall be "without any deduction or abatement for taxes," is a stipulation to pay the taxes on the land mortgaged, not on the debt secured. Clopton v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 356. 1. Lillie v. Case, 54 Iowa 177; Sackett v. Osborn, 26 Iowa 146; Cole v. Wright, 70 Ind. 179; Farber v. Purdy, 69 Mo. 601; Francis v. Washburn, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 294; Sherman v. Savery, 2 Fed. Rep. 505. But see Wilson v. Tappan, 6 Ohio 172. And payment of taxes by the purchaser while in possession, but before the deed is executed, will inure to the benefit of his title when consummated. Russell v.

Mandell, 73 Ill. 136.

But taxes previously assessed and remaining unpaid are a personal charge against the vendor. Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 513; Biggins v. People, 96 Ill. 381; Blodgett v. German Sav. Bank, 69 Ind. 153; Desmond v. Babbitt, 117 Mass. 233; Smirch v. York County, 68 Pa. St. 439; Henry v. Horstick, 9 Watts (Pa.) 412; Alexandria v. Preston, 8 Cranch (U. S.) 53; Greer v. McCarter, 5 Kan. 17.

Where an owner conveys land with covenants against incumbrances after assessment, but before the tax has been extended, he is not liable for the tax, the assessment constituting no incumbrance before it is extended. Barlow v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 63 N. Y. 399; 20 Am. Rep. 547; Dowdney v. New York, 54 N. Y. 186. But compare Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 513.

In Tennessee, the vendee of land is required to pay the tax imposed on sales. Guthrie v. South Western Iron Co., 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 826.

2. Holcombe v. Holcombe, 29 N. J. Eq. 597; Holmes v. Taber, 9 Allen (Mass.) 246.

But where a farm was devised to trustees, who were directed to pay the rents to one whom they allowed to occupy it instead, it was held that the taxes should be paid by the occupant

and not allowed in the executors' accounts as a charge against the estate. Bates v. Underhill, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 365.

3. See Brown v. Evans, 15 Kan. 88; Sohier v. Eldredge, 103 Mass. 345; Holcombe v. Holcombe, 29 N. J. Eq. 597; Fleet v. Dorland, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 489; Lawrence v. Holden, 3 Bradf. (N. Y.) 142; even though the assessment was completed and the tax became an existing demand before the death of the decedent. McMahon v. Beekman, 65 How. Pr. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 427.

In Whittaker v. Wright, 35 Ark. 511, it was held to be the duty of an executor, upon the neglect of the mortgagor, to pay the taxes on property mortgaged to the estate, and if he omits to do so, or if there is no representative, a creditor of the estate may pay them, and be reimbursed out of the proceeds of the sale upon foreclosure.

And

But it is not the duty of an administrator to pay taxes accumulating on the lands after the death of the intestate, where he does not sell or need them for the payment of debts of the intestate. Reading v. Wier, 29 Kan. 429. in Henry v. Horstick, 9 Watts (Pa.) 412, a purchaser of real estate sold by order of the orphans' court, in a proceeding in partition by the administrator, who had been compelled to pay taxes assessed before the sale, was not allowed to recover them from the administrator.

4. Brooks v. Eighmey, 53 Iowa 276. Taxes due from a dissolved insurance company are payable from its funds by the state superintendent of insurance. In re Life Association of America, 12 Mo. App. 40.

5. See LANDLORD AND TENANT, vol. 12, p. 692.

6. Young v. King, 3 R. I. 196; Marshall v. Baldwin, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 403.

In Dean v. Wills, 21 Tex. 642, it was held that the fact that a person

signing a tax receipt acts as tax collector, is prima facie evidence of his authority.

1. Jones v. Welsing, 52 Iowa 220. Where taxes are paid to the person authorized by the county treasurer to receive them, the fact that the receipt is signed only by a stamp, with the fac simile of the treasurer's signature, will not affect the rights of a taxpayer as against a subsequent purchaser at a sale for the non-payment of the tax. Randall v. Dailey, 66 Wis. 285.

a

2. Where real estate and personal property have been assessed in doubtful or disputed territory, by two counties, payment of taxes in the county where the land is actually located will bar an action for the taxes brought in the other county. People v. Wilkerson, I Idaho 619. And see Patton v. Long, 68 Pa. St. 260.

In Hilliard v. Griffin, 72 Iowa 331, a sale of land by the treasurer of a newly organized town, for taxes levied before the organization, and while it was attached to another town for revenue purposes, was held void, such taxes being payable to the treasurer of the county to which it was formerly attached.

3. State v. Carson City Sav. Bank, 17 Nev. 146; Stiles v. Hitchcock, 47 Vt. 419; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575. And where the treasurer made out a receipt for the taxes, and entered them on his books as "paid," it was held not to operate as a discharge, unless followed by actual payment. Ambler v. Clayton, 23 Iowa 173.

Where upon a payment of taxes, the statute requires the tax receiver to give a receipt, a tender is not rendered invalid because such a receipt is demanded. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 17 Nev. 259.

No arrangement can be made between the collector and taxpayer whereby he is discharged from liability by anything except absolute payment. Reutchler v. Hucke, 3 Ill. App. 144; Conway v. Cable, 37 Ill. 83; 87 Am. Dec. 240; Ambler v. Clayton, 23 Iowa 173; Merriam v. Dovey (Neb. 1888), 36 N. W. Rep. 382.

Though in some states the collector

has been permitted to satisfy a tax by payment to the treasurer and then enforce his claim against the person upon whom the tax is a charge. Shriver v. Cowell, 92 Pa. St. 262; Wallace's Estate, 59 Pa. St. 401; White v. State, 51 Ga. 252; Schaum v. Showers, 49 Ind. 285; Jacks v. Dyer, 31 Ark. 334; Gove v. Newton, 58 N. H. 359; Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H. 420; Mittenberger v. Cooke, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 421.

In Elson v. Spraker, 100 Ind. 374, an agreement between a taxpayer and a collector, by which the collector delivered the receipt and marked the tax paid when no payment was made, was held equivalent to an advancement of so much money by the collector at the request of the taxpayer, rendering the latter personally liable for the money

advanced.

4. Flynn v. Edwards, 36 Fed. Rep. 873; Hunt v. McFadgen, 20 Ark. 277; State v. Carson City Sav. Bank, 17 Nev.. 146; Tracey v. Irwin, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 549; Laflin v. Herrington, 16 Ill. 301; Driggers v. Cassady, 71 Ala. 529; Crum v. Burke, 25 Pa. St. 377; Heft v. Gephart, 65 Pa. St. 510; Auld v. McAllaster, 43 Kan. 162.

The treasurer may decline to receive a tender of a part of the tax or to give any receipt therefor, unless the entire amount of the tax is paid. Julien v. Ainsworth, 27 Kan. 446.

But the application of a part payment to a particular portion of the real estate will relieve that portion from liability to sale until the remainder is exhausted. Cones v. Wilson, 14 Ind. 465.

Penalties and Expenses Included.— Penalties for default and expenses incurred in an effort to collect, are included with the tax and must also be paid to discharge the lien. Bracey v. Ray, 26 La. Ann. 710; Joslyn v. Tracy, 19 Vt. 569. But the taxpayer cannot be compelled to pay a penalty in excess of that allowed by law. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hartshorn, 30 Fed. Rep. 541.

May Pay Any One Separate Tax.Where several assessments are united for convenience of collection, the full amount of any one or more of them

4

may be paid, and the rest refused or contested. Iowa R. Land Co. v. Carroll County, 39 Iowa 151; Olmsted County v. Barber, 31 Minn. 256. see Lawrence v. Miller, 86 Ill. 502; Auld v. McAllaster, 43 Kan. 162.

And

Payment of Taxes Upon Realty Includes Appurtenances.-The mains and pipes of a gas company are mere appurtenances of realty whereon the works are situated, and when erroneously assessed as personal property and the company has paid the taxes upon its realty, the treasurer cannot advertise and sell the realty for the alleged delinquent taxes upon the personalty. Capital City Gas Light Co. 7. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 51 Iowa 31.

1. Breisch v. Coxe, 81 Pa. St. 336; Baird v. Cahoon, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 540; Neeley v. Wise, 44 Iowa 544; Corning Town Co. v. Davis, 44 Iowa 629; Lewis v. Withers, 44 Fed. Rep. 165; Griffing v. Pintard, 25 Miss. 173; Doe v. Burford, 26 Miss. 194; Jones v. Dils, 18 W. Va. 759.

Where the owner applies for the taxes assessed against him and pays the amount stated, he has performed his duty,whether the information given him is correct or not. Laird v. Hiester, 24 Pa. St. 452; Philadelphia v. Anderson, 142 Pa. St. 357; Freeman v. Cornwell (Pa. 1888), 15 Atl. Rep. 873; Jiska v. Ringgold County, 57 Iowa 630; Moon v. March, 40 Kan. 58; People v. Brooklyn, 114 N. Y. 19. And see Cummings v. Easton, 46 Iowa 183; Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505; Randall 7. Dailey, 66 Wis. 285.

And a statement of a tax and the receipt therefor, unassailed, have been held clear evidence that the taxpayer applied to the treasurer for the taxes assessed against him and paid all that was demanded. Breisch v. Coxe, 81 Pa. St. 336.

But the mistake of an officer in stating the amount of taxes due on property to a party who, unknown to him, was about to become a purchaser, will not prevent their subsequent collection. El

liot v. District of Columbia, 3 McArthur (D. C.) 396. And see Gow v. Tidrick, 48 Iowa 284.

In Kahl v. Love, 37 N. J. L. 5, it was held that a tax collector is not required to give certificates that property is discharged from the taxes, and if his receipts are used for that purpose it is at the peril of those relying upon them. See also Alkan v. Bean, 8 Biss. (U.S.) 83.

2. Hawkins v. Dougherty (Del. 1890), 18 Atl. Rep. 951; Law v. People, 84 Ill. 142; Lawrence v. Miller, 86 Ill. 502. And see Julian v. Stephens (Ky. 1889), II S. W. Rep. 6.

Where land is assessed in such a way as to render the description uncertain, the owner can tender to the collector the amount of the tax, and demand the receipt with the proper description of the land. Lawrence v. People, 84 Ill. 142. But see Stiles . Hitchcock, 47 Vt. 419, where it was held that a tax collector is under no obligation to give a receipt for taxes paid him.

3. Law v. People, 84 Ill. 142; Perry v. Washburne, 20 Cal. 318. And see Lawrence v. Miller, 86 III. 502.

4. McLanahan v. Syracuse, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 259; Orange County Bank 7. Wakeman, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 446; Mumford v. Armstrong, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 553; Dickson v. Gamble, 16 Fla. 687; Sawyer v. Springfield, 40 Vt. 305; McWilliams 7. Phillips, 51 Miss. 196; Craig v. Smith, 31 Mo. App. 286; Elliott v. Miller, 8 Mich. 132; Doran v. Phillips, 47 Mich. 228; Fuller v. Chicago, 89 Ill. 282; Crutcher v. Sterling, I Idaho 307; Wells v. Cole, 27 Ark. 603; State v. Sneed, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 472.

Payment or tender in any other medium will not discharge the lien of the tax. Coit v. Claw, 28 Ark. 516; Loftin v. Watson, 32 Ark. 414.

Where the collector accepts a bank check and gives a receipt for the taxes, the property may afterwards, on the dishonor of the check, be sold for the tax, although the owner had since sold it, showing the collector's receipt as