Such an assessment is intended to establish a personal liability, and it is very manifest that assessors can have no power to charge one class of persons when the statute specifies a different class for the purpose. Thus, if the statute says the owners shall be assessed, the assessors cannot lawfully charge occupants who are not owners,' though, if the statute only requires the assessors to list in the names of the owners respectively, if known, if they omit the name in the list, or set down the lands as belonging to persons unknown, the presumption that they widow alone was held void in Yancey v. Hopkins, 1 Munf., 419. A listing to "estate of J. B. Coles," held good. State v. Jersey City, 24 N. J., 108. To the same effect are Dickison v. Reynolds, 48 Mich., 158; Moale v. Baltimore, 61 Md., 224. Compare Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y., 107. Such a listing held bad in North Carolina. Morrison v. McLauchlin, 88 N. C., 251. In New York it is said such a listing would be irregular. If there are trustees under a will holding the estate, it should be assessed to them. Trowbridge v. Horan, 78 N. Y., 439. As to Kansas, see Reading v. Wier, 29 Kan., 429. See, further, Elliot v. Spinney, 69 Me., 31.

There is a statute in Arkansas that "no sale of any lands or town lots for the payment of taxes shall be considered invalid on account of its having been charged on the tax book in any other name than that of the rightful owner, if such land be in other respects sufficiently described in the tax book, and the taxes for which the same is sold be due and unpaid at the time of such sale." This statute enforced in Merrick v. Hutt, 15 Ark., 331. And see Kinsworthy v. Mitchell, 21 Ark., 145; Garibaldi v. Jenkins, 27 Ark., 453, 456. Compare the Missouri cases of Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo., 162; S. C., 46 Mo., 291; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo., 145. Mistakes in names not calculated to mislead will not vitiate. Van Voorhis v. Budd, 39 Barb., 479; Pierce v. Richardson, 37 N. H., 306. An assessment to L. H. S. is not an assessment to the owner when he has been dead ten years, and the property stands of record in the name of his succession. Stafford v. Twitchell, 33 La. An., 520. It is proper to assess partnership lands to the partnership, instead of the individual partners. Hubbard v. Winsor, 15 Mich., 146.

1 Mansfield v. Martin, 3 Mass., 419. But the assessment of the lands of a company to one member who was in possession as agent was held sufficient, and the addition of "agent" to his name treated as surplusage. Wells v. Battelle, 11 Mass., 477. See further, Coombs v. Warren, 34 Me., 89; Knox v. Huidekoper, 21 Wis., 527; Cardigan v. Page, 6 N. H., 182; Ainsworth v. Dean, 21 N. H., 400; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal., 609; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo., 162; S. C., 46 Mo., 291; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo., 145; Johnson v. McIntire, 1 Bibb, 295. The sale of an individual's land assessed as state land is void. Redmond v. Banks, 60 Miss., 293.

An owner of land is not personally liable for the tax when it is assessed to another. Jefferson City v. Mock, 74 Mo., 61.

In California it has been held that one in possession of lands after his title has been cut off by a tax sale is not taxable for the land. Maina v. Elliott, 51 Cal., 8. It is not likely that this would be held in some other states.

performed their duty in endeavoring to ascertain the owner may support the assessment, until evidence that the officers did know the owner overcomes this presumption.1

Care should be taken that the name given in the list be the

1 Blackwell on Tax Titles, 145, citing Cardigan . Page, 6 N. H., 182; Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H., 420; Nelson v. Pierce, 6 N. H., 194; Ainsworth v. Dean, 21 N. H., 400; Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me., 359; Merritt v. Thompson, 13 Ill., 716; Shimmin v. Inman, 26 Me., 228; Jaquith v. Putney, 48 N. H., 138; Stockton v. Dunham, 59 Cal., 608, 609; Corning Town Co. v. Davis, 44 Ia., 622. In this last case such an assessment is said to be a mere irregularity.

The statute provided that the assessment should show "the owner of each lot or portion of a lot (if known to the superintendent), if unknown, the word 'unknown' shall be written opposite the number of the lot,” etc. Held, that when the assessment was returned with the word "unknown" thus placed, "it amounted to an official certificate, by the proper officer, that in point of fact the owner of the particular lot designated was unknown to him," and this was conclusive of the fact certified, and could not be collaterally called in question in an action brought to recover the tax. Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal., 497, 518. For further decisions in California, see Grotefend v. Ultz, 53 Cal., 666; Grimm v. O'Connell, 54 Cal., 522; Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal., 365; Brady v. Dowden, 59 Cal., 51; Hall v. Theisen, 61 Cal., 524; San Francisco v. Phelan, 61 Cal., 617. Although in a proper case land may be assessed to "owner unknown," yet if it be so assessed, and at the same time be assessed to the owner by name, the assessment is void. Nichols v. McGlathery, 43 Ia., 189. In Louisiana land cannot be assessed as "unknown" without an honest endeavor first to ascertain the owner. Rapp v. Lowry, 30 La. An., 1272. See Person v. O'Neal, 28 La. An., 228. So in Alabama. Oliver v. Robinson, 58 Ala., 46.

Where one is in possession of land under a parol gift it should be assessed to the donor who is still legal owner. Mullikin v. Reeves, 71 Ind., 281. Where land is to be assessed to the person holding and owning the same, it is properly assessed to an occupant who holds the record title, but has given a trust deed of it as security. Greenwalt v. Tucker, 8 Fed. Rep., 792. Where land is to be assessed to the occupant, an assessment to a company when it is owned by an individual and occupied by his agent, is void. Hearst v. Egglestone, 55 Cal., 365. If the land is without buildings, and only used as a garden, an assessment to the owner may be sustained. Massing v. Ames, 37 Wis., 645. See this case for an assessment of the wife's land to the husband sustained. Where the statute required land to be assessed to the owner on a day named, and the land was sold before that day, but bought back afterwards, and the deed which had been given, but not recorded, was destroyed to revest the title, an assessment to the party who had thus sold was held void. Pitkin v. Parks, 54 Vt., 301.

2 That where land required to be assessed to the owner is assessed to another, the proceedings are void, see Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss., 135; Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo., 162; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo., 145; People v.

correct one; for any misleading error would be fatal.

If land

is held by two or more as tenants in common it should either be assessed to all jointly or undivided interests assessed to the owners severally; they cannot be assessed for distinct quantities. A life tenant should be assessed as owner during the continuance of the life estate. If the husband has the care and occupancy of the wife's land, it may be assessed to him as occupant. Where a statute provides for the assessment of the estates of deceased persons to heirs or devisees without specifying names until they give notice of its division, an assessment to heirs is bad when the property is given to devisees."

Where land is assessed to an occupant who is tenant of the owner, it is sometimes provided by statute that he shall be en

Castro, 39 Cal., 65; Himmelman v. Steiner, 38 Cal., 175; Bidleman v. Brooks, 28 Cal., 72; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal., 609; Yenda v. Wheeler, 9 Tex., 408; Hecht v. Boughton, 2 Wy., 368. By owner is meant the legal, not the equitable, owner. People v. Seaman's Friend Society, 87 Ill., 246.

1 Smith v. Reed, 51 Conn., 10; People v. Whipple, 47 Cal., 591 - both cases of error in the baptismal name. But in Iowa such an error was held not to invalidate the lien on the land. Kendig v. Knight, 60 Ia., 29. In Illinois the listing of a railroad right of way to the railroad company, when it was in possession of the construction company, was sustained. Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill., 346. An assessment to a married woman in her maiden name has been upheld. Lavergne v. New Orleans, 28 La. An., 677. Under the Indiana statute an assessment is not void because of not being made in the name of the owner. Cooper v. Jackson, 71 Ind., 244; Schrodt v. Deputy, 88 Ind., 90; Stilz v. Indianapolis, 81 Ind., 582; Peckham v. Millikan, 99 Ind., 352.

2 See Hayes v. Viator, 33 La. An., 1162. An assessment to one of two tenants in common was sustained in Fleischauer v. Hoboken, 40 N. J., 109. 3 Garland v. Garland, 73 Me., 97. It is the duty of a tenant for life to pay the annual taxes (Sidenburg v. Ely, 90 N. Y., 257; Deraismes v. Deraismes, 72 N. Y., 154; Anderson v. Hensley, 8 Heisk., 834); but where permanent improvements are assessed, they should be apportioned between him and those who have interests in remainder. Pratt v. Douglass, 38 N. J. Eq., 516.

Paul v. Fries, 18 Fla., 573. But where they do not live together, and he does not occupy the land, such an assessment would be void. Smith v. Reed, 51 Conn., 10. In Wisconsin an assessment of the wife's property to the husband may be upheld. Enos v. Bemis, 61 Wis., 656.

Elliott v. Spinney, 69 Me., 31. In Kansas, where land descends at once to the heir, the administrator is not bound to pay taxes upon it unless he proceeds to sell it. Reading v. Wier, 29 Kan., 429. In New Hampshire Eastman v. Thayer,

a mortgagee in possession is not bound to pay taxes. 60 N. H., 408.

titled to deduct the taxes paid from the rent. But this is subject to be changed by contract.1

2

3

Separate Assessment of Parcels. It is also generally made imperative that separate and distinct parcels of land shall be assessed separately. This is certainly essential where the lands are resident or seated, and in the occupancy of different persons, each of whom has a right to know exactly what demand the government makes upon him. A failure to observe this requirement is not a mere "omission, defect or irregularity," which can be overlooked, under a statute which provides that assessments for taxation shall be valid "notwithstanding any omission, defect or irregularity" in the proceedings. The like separate assessment is also essential in other cases if the statute requires it. The reasons are sufficiently manifest. If separate parcels of land belonging to different individuals, and presumably of different values, can be assessed together, neither of the owners has any means of determining the amount of tax which is properly chargeable to his property, and consequently no means of discharging his own land from the lien, and of protecting his title, except by paying the whole of a demand some undefined and undefinable portion of which is

1 See Hammon v. Sexton, 69 Ind., 37. It is said that a tenant, having a right by statute to deduct from his rent the taxes paid on the land, can deduct such as the land was chargeable with in its condition as rented, and not such as his improvements afterwards have caused. Mayo v. Carrington, 19 Grat., 74.

After the rolls are closed, a transposition made by one assessor without authority is a nullity, and the roll will be considered as if the change had not been made. St. Charles St. R. Co. v. Assessors, 31 La. An., 852.

2 Barker v. Blake, 36 Me., 433; Greene v. Walker, 63 Me., 311; State v. Williston, 20 Wis., 228; Roby v. Chicago, 48 Ill., 130; People v. Shimmins, 42 Cal., 121; Boardman v. Bourne, 20 Ia., 135; Ware v. Thompson, 29 Ia., 65.

3 Hamilton v. Fond du Lac, 25 Wis., 490. Compare Stewart v. Shoenfelt, 13 S. & R., 360; Bratton v. Mitchell, 1 W. & S., 310; Mitchell v. Bratton, 5 W. & S., 451; Russell v. Werntz, 24 Pa. St., 337; Miller v. Hale, 26 Pa. St., 432; McReynolds v. Longenberger, 57 Pa. St., 13; Dietrich v. Mason, 57 Pa. St., 40; Rogers v. Johnson, 67 Pa. St., 43; Sargeant v. Bean, 7 Gray, 125. If two parcels are wrongfully assessed together, and one is not taxable, the tax on that, if paid under protest, may be recovered back. St. Mary's Church v. Tripp, 14 R. I., 307.

neither in equity nor in law a proper charge against him.' Nay, when the two parcels are owned by the same person, if the statute requires a separate assessment, obedience to the requirement is essential to the validity of the proceedings. It cannot be held in any case that it is unimportant to the tax payer whether this requirement is complied with or not. Indeed it is made solely for his benefit; it being wholly immaterial, so far as the interest of the state is concerned, whether separate estates are or are not separately assessed. And where a requirement has for its sole object the benefit of the tax payer, the necessity for a compliance with it cannot be made to depend upon the circumstances of a particular case, and the opinion of a court or jury regarding the importance of obedience to it in that instance. That method of construing statutes would abolish all certainty.2

1 See Shimmin v. Inman, 26 Me., 228; Barker v. Blake, 36 Me., 433; Hayden v. Foster, 13 Pick., 492; Jennings v. Collins, 99 Mass., 29; Crane v. Janesville, 20 Wis., 305; Orton v. Noonan, 25 Wis., 672, 677; Siegel v. Outagamie Co., 26 Wis., 70; Willey v. Scoville's Lessee, 9 Ohio, 44; Douglass v. Dangerfield, 10 Ohio, 152, 156; Cooley v. Waterman, 16 Mich., 466; Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich., 419; Farnham v. Jones, 32 Minn., 7; McLaughlin v. Kain, 45 Pa. St., 113; Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss., 135; Terrill v. Groves, 18 Cal., 149; Howe v. People, 86 Ill., 288. No omission of the land owner to appeal could validate such an assessment. Lyman v. People, 2 Ill. App., 289.

Where land has been regularly platted into city lots, an assessment by the acre as before is bad. Bruce v. McBee, 23 Kan., 379; Hapgood v. Morten, 28 Kan., 764. What is a sufficient plat when property is described by reference to it, see People v. Root, 107 Ill., 581.

2 See Ins. Co. v. Yard, 17 Pa. St., 331, 338; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall., 506, 511; Walker v. Chapman, 22 Ala., 116; Martin v. Cole, 38 Ia., 141, 153; Sandwich v. Fish, 2 Gray, 298, 301; Challis v. Hekelnkemper, 14 Kan., 474; Nason v. Ricker, 63 Me., 381; Allegany Co. Com'rs v. Mining Co., 61 Md., 545. It makes no difference that the aggregate tax of an owner of land is not increased by the grouping. See last case. But the grouping of two or more parcels owned by the same person was held in Russell v. Werntz, 24 Pa. St., 337, to be only an irregularity, and therefore cured under a statute which provided that "no irregularity in the assessment, or in the process or otherwise, shall be construed or taken to affect the title of the purchaser, but the same shall be declared to be good and legal." But this would not validate the assessment of unseated land on the seated list, and then transferring it to the unseated without notice. Milliken v. Benedict, 8 Pa. St., 169.

A non-resident parcel which has never been subdivided cannot be assessed for taxation in parcels. Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y., 52.