Sec. 911. Rights of purchaser at an invalid tax sale. While the holder of a certificate of purchase at a tax sale may foreclose his lien when the tax deed issued pursuant thereto is invalid by reason of an irregularity in the proceedings leading up to such sale, this rule cannot be invoked when, in his petition, such purchaser alleges that the officer making the sale to him acted without authority of law and without any jurisdic tion in the premises. Ledwich. v. Connell, 48 Neb. 172 (66 N. W. Rep. 1108). Wis. Rev. Stat., § 1184, giving the holder of a certificate issued on an "invalid" tax sale, the right to have the money he has paid therefor refunded to him by the court, applies not only to tax sales which are void for reasons affecting the ground work of the tax, but also to sales which can only be defeated by the landowner paying the money which the certificate cost with a high rate of interest. Pier v. Oneida Co., 93 Wis. 463 (67 N. W. Rep. 702). The power of the court under this statute is confined to refunding money paid for certificates that are invalid, and where the holder of a valid certificate erroneously believing it to be invalid applied for refundment of the money paid, which he accepted, but subsequently upon discovery of his mistake returned the same to the proper officer, he is not estopped from completing his title under his certificate, the owner being in no wise prejudiced by such acts. Edwards v. Upham, 93 Wis. 455 (67 N. W. Rep. 728). Mass. Stat., 1888, ch. 390, §§ 44, 47, construed and applied-recovery by purchaser of price upon failure of title. Lynde v. City of Malden, 166 Mass. 244 (44 N. E. Rep. 227). Where a tax deed is invalid because no seal of the officer executing it is attached thereto, or because the statute authorizes no such seal, the holder thereof is entitled to reimbursement for the amount of such taxes as he has paid upon his purchase, and subsequent taxes properly paid, and in respect thereto to be subrogated to the rights of the public as to the liens of such taxes and interest. Frank v. Scoville, 48 Neb. 169 (66 N. W. Rep. 1113). As to the rights of a purchaser at a tax sale in Louisiana in case of failure of title, see Walsh v. Harang, 48 La. 984 (20 So. Rep. 202). The right of a purchaser at a tax sale to recover the purchase price with penalty and interest, upon failure of the tax title, is not defeated by the failure of the officer to authen

ticate by seal the assessor's book, as required by 2 Wag. Mo. Stat., ch. 118, § 65. Taft v. Mc Cullock, 135 Mo. 588 (37 S. W. Rep. 499). A city having power to regulate the collection and assessment of taxes, may oy ordinance provide for the refundment of the purchase price to those who in the future purchase at illegal tax sales, but it has not power to extend such an ordinance to sales made before its passage. Phelps v. Tacoma, 15 Wash. 367 (46 Pac. Rep. 400). In an action by a purchaser to enforce a tax lien, costs, penalty and interest occasioned by a void tax sale cannot be charged against the land. Texarkana Water Co. v. State, 62 Ark, 188 (35 S. W. Rep. 788). Citing, Shaw v. Peckett, 26 Vt. 482; Cave v. City of Houston, 65 Tex. 619; Cooley, Tax'ı (2d Ed.), 17; Black, Tax Titles, § 151.

Sec. 912. Tender and payments required of on recovering land from the holder of an invalid tax title Hill's Ann. Or. Laws, § 2823, which requires the defendan or party claiming to be the owner of land which is sought to be recovered by another claiming under a tax title, to tender with his answer the amount for which the land was sold and subsequent taxes paid by the purchaser, with interest, for the benefit of the plaintiff in case his tax title shall fail, is held to have no application where the tax deed under which he plaintiff claims is so deficient in the description of the land as to render it void. Jory v. Palace Dry Goods & Shoe Co., 30 Or. 196 (46 Pac. Rep. 786). The court say: "It is not in every instance where the tax title fails that the land owner is required to tender the taxes paid by the purchaser before he is entitled to recover as against the tax deed. If the tax itself were vicious, or such that the legislature could not lawfully impose upon the person or property, the tender could not be required, as it would result in a lawless exaction, which the state would be without power to compel, either directly or indirectly. Cooley, Tax'n, 551, 552; Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218; Sinclair v. Learned, 51 Mich. 335 (16 N. W. Rep. 672); Powers v. Larabce, 2 N. Dak. 141 (43 N. W. Rep. 724); Black, Tax Titles, § 438; West v. Cameron, 39 Kan. 738 (18 Pac. Rep. 894). And it seems that where the

description is so vague and indefinite as not to be the means of describing any lands, and therefore insufficient for the purposes of assessment, and the deed is without efficacy for the same reason, the county acquires no interest in the land by virtue of the assessment, and hence cannot create or transfer a lien to the purchaser for the taxes for which the land is sold by a deed which is ineffectual in itself to identify such land. The doctrine of caveat emptor applies to such a purchaser and he acquires nothing because the county conveys nothing by its deed. The very corpus involved in the transaction is not identified for any purpose. So, it cannot be said that the county, through the instrumentality of the assessment, sale and deed, has transferred to or created a lien for the taxes paid in favor of the purchaser. The case contemplated by the statute is analogous to the equitable transfer of a mortgage security to the purchaser at a void judicial sale, under an invalid foreclosure proceeding, or the subrogation of the purchaser to the rights of the lienholder. But, if the lien is void in the first instance that is to say, if the property is so imperfectly described as to give no lien,-the void judicial sale is without potency for the equitable transfer of a lien to the purchaser, because none ever existed, and the proceeding cannot create one. In support of these views, see Roberts v. Deeds, 57 Ia. 320 (10 N. W. Rep. 740); Early v. Whittingham, 43 Iowa, 162, and Powers v. Larabee, 2 N. Dak. 141 (49 N. W. Rep. 724)." Under Kan. Gen. Stat. (1889), par. 6996, "if the holder of a tax deed ** * be defeated in an action by or against him for the recovery of lands sold, the successful claimant shall be adjudged to pay to the holder of the tax deed the full amount of all taxes paid on such lands, with interest and costs as allowed by law up to the date of said tax deed, including the cost of such deed and the recording of the same, with interest on such amount at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum," and in such action it is not proper for the court to inquire into the correctness of the assessed valuation of the land, for the purpose of showing the amount of taxes justly chargeable thereon, and to reduce the amount. of taxes recoverable by the holder of the invalid tax deed. Booge v. Ritchie, 2 Kan. App. 714 (43 Pac. Rep. 1144).

Sec. 913. Irregularities which avoid or invalidate tax sales. A tax sale of property for taxes which have been paid is null and void. Brown v. Pontchartrain Land Co., 48 La. 1188 (20 So. Rep. 711). Where illegal sums are purposely included within the amount for which the land was sold, and the sale includes such illegal sums, it is void. Truesdell v. Peck, 2 Kan. App. 533 (43 Pac. Rep. 990). A tax deed based upon a judgment for taxes which includes excessive costs is invalid. Fuller v. Shedd, 161 Ill. 462 (44 N. E. Rep. 286; 52 Am. St. Rep. 380; 33 L. R. A. 146). In Arkansas it is held that a tax sale for a sum including 25 cents illegal costs is void. Salinger v. Gunn, 61 Ark. 414 (33 S. W. Rep. 959). A sale based upon an insufficient description of property in a tax proceeding is void. Texarkana Water Co. v. State, 62 Ark. 188 (35 S. W. Rep. 788). An unauthorized resale of lands previously sold for taxes and purchased by the state, is void. See opinion for construction of local statutes. Totten v. Nighbert, 41 W. Va. 800 (24 S. E. Rep. 627). A failure to comply with a statute (N. H. Gen. Laws, ch. 59, §§ 1, 3) requiring both the list of taxes assessed upon nonresident lands and the collector's advertisement of the lands for sale to state "the amount of taxes assessed thereon," renders the sale void. Derry Nat. Bank v. Griffin, N. H. (34 Atl. Rep. 740). A tax sale made under Ala. Acts 1868, p. 297, of several pieces of property en masse, which were not valued separately, and the advertisement of the sale did not state the amount of taxes due, is void. National Bank v. Baker Hill Iron Co., 108 Ala. 635 (19 So. Rep. 47). Construing and applying Kansas Gen. Stats. 1889, par. 6957, it is held that a tax deed including a fee for printing the sale notice is voidable if the printer's affidavit of publication is not transmitted to the county treasurer within 14 days after the last publication, although it was transmitted to and filed in the office of the county clerk within that time. Douglass v. Walker, 57 Kan. App. 328 (46 Pac. Rep. 318). Where the

description of the land to be sold in the notice of sale is so indefinite that it is impossible to determine what land is meant the sale will be set aside. Richardson v. Simpson, 82 Md. 155 (33 Atl. Rep. 457).

Sec. 914. Setting aside tax sales- Practice - Reasons insufficient. Construing Ia. Code, § 897, which provides that "no person shall be permitted to question the title acquired by a treasurer's deed without first showing that he or the person under whom he claims title, had title to the property at the time of the sale, or that the title was obtained from the United States or from this state after the sale," it is held that one assailing a tax deed may show that he had title by adverse possession. Shelley v. Smith, 97 Ia. 259 (66 N. W. Rep. 172). An attack upon a tax sale upon the ground of want of notice will not be sustained after a long lapse of time where the tax deed recites the giving of due notice. Pickett v. Southern Athletic Club, 47 La. 1605 (18 So. Rep. 634). A tax sale is not rendered invalid by reason of the property being sold for an amount in excess of the amount due, where the statute provides a means by which the excess may be paid to the owner. Shattuck v. Smith, 6 N. Dak. 56 (69 N. W. Rep. 5). Where a trustee holding the legal title to land, returned it for taxation for a particular year, in his own name, making no other tax return for that year, a sale for the taxes so assessed will pass the title as against his cestui que trust although the poll tax of the trustee was included in the tax execution, the sale being otherwise regular. Barnes v. Lewis, 98 Ga. 558 (25 S. E. Rep. 589).

Sec. 915. Redemption from tax sales. Where one has an interest as owner in real estate his purchase of a cer. tificate of a tax sale thereof will be treated as a redemption and he can not by an assignment of such certificate to another, clothe him with a title which can be asserted against the grantee of such purchaser. Prizer v. Taylor, 3 Kan. App. 690 (44 Pac. Rep. 902). A suit by an infant, upon his attaining majority, to redeem from a tax sale, is not an "action for the recovery of any lands or for possession thereof" within the meaning of Sand. and H. Ark. Dig., § 2595, which requires the plaintiff in such an action to show tender to the purchaser of the amount of taxes paid and value of improvements. Burgett v. McCray, 61 Ark. 456 (33 S. W. Rep. 639). The revenue laws of Indiana do not make any provision for the redemption of lands sold on the foreclosure of a