residence and cultivation, and cultivates a number of acres, this charges the person of the cultivator.1

Land is assessed according to the warrants issued for it, unless the owner otherwise directs. Where an intruder had 150 acres of a tract of 990 marked off to him and assessed as such, this did not affect the owner who had not consented to such an assessment, nor did this marking off make the tract seated, and the whole tract having been sold as unseated, it gave good title.2

When a number of tracts were warranted to different persons, and were conveyed in one body by courses and distances, all the warrants being seated, the tracts were assessed as different or separate tracts, and sold separately for taxes. Possession of part is not possession of the whole in the sense that possession of one of these tracts, would seat the whole.

3

In Maine, "unimproved lands of non-residents" are required to be assessed eo nomine, and different from the lands of resident proprietors. A failure to observe the distinction, and listing the lands of a resident proprietor as non-resident, makes the assessment void. The improved lands of non-residents are to be assessed to occupants, just as lands of residents are assessed to their owners. If part of a tract of land of a non-resident is improved, that character extends to the whole tract, and if such a tract is assessed as one entire estate in the character of non-resident land, the assessment is void.5

So in Massachusetts, "unimproved lands of a non-resident" have a distinct character. The tax is against the land as such, constitutes a lien on the land, and is not a personal charge against the owner, and such lands must be assessed according to their character. Now, in that State, it may be assessed to "unknown" if with reasonable diligence the owner cannot be ascertained by the assessors, when the land is unoccupied. But this does not authorize an assessment to a former owner, who has no title or possession. Such an assessment is void.

In Illinois, under the act of 1827, residents were required to list their lands, and on default in payment of the tax, the sheriff was authorized to sell them. By the act of 1829, the treasurer of the county was required to send to the auditor a list of lands not listed, which were to be sold by him as non-resident. It is only such land that can be sold

1 Biddle v. Noble, 68 Penn. St. 279.

Reading v. Finney, 73 Penn. St. 467; Brown v. Hays, 66 Penn. St. 235.
Heft v. Gephart, 65 Penn. St. 510.

4 Barker v. Hasseltine, 27 Maine, 354; Lunt v. Wormwell, 19 Maine, 100.
Moulton v. Blaisdell, 24 Maine, 283.

↑ Desmond v. Babbitt, 117 Mass. 233.

Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. 418.

for non-payment of taxes. The proceedings to compel sale are against these tracts of land not listed by the owners, designated as non-resident, and not against the owners. The listing is a fundamental requisite, without which a sale would be void, under the act of 1827.2

So in New York, prior to 1850, lands were to be assessed to the owner or occupant, and unoccupied lands not owned by a person residing in the town or ward, were to be assessed as "lands of nonresidents;" the former could not be sold for the non-payment of taxes, and the latter could. An assessment of lands to one as a resident, when they were in fact owned by another person, who was a non-resident, is void. But if assessors have jurisdiction, and determine that the lands of a railroad passing through their town should be assessed as resident, and not as non-resident, the taxes paid cannot be recovered on the ground that their acts are void. Land in a township, which has not been subdivided into lots, must be assessed as one tract. When it is non-resident land there is no authority to divide it into lots and assess them at different valuations, and a sale under such assessment is void.5

It must not be supposed that because in the class of cases we are considering, the land is proceeded against and the name of the owner is not essential, there is any less necessity for a description of the land by which it can be readily identified. There must be something more than parol proof to show that a particular tract was meant to be assessed, some element of identity leading to a knowledge of the land assessed. This may consist of a name connected with a title of some kind once existing in connection with the land, or a number, or a known designation, an adjoinder, a settlement, or some circumstance to lead to a knowledge of the land assessed. It does not help the matter to call it a proceeding in rem. A thing to be the subject of a legal proceeding must have some means of ascertainment. Parol evidence cannot be used to show that a tract on the list was intended for a particular tract. Titles which should rest in the breast of the officer making the levy, would be of all things most transitory. The lots of land must be definitely and distinctly described, and parol proof cannot supply the deficiency in description or boundaries; these

Messenger v. Germain, 1 Gilman, 631; Atkins v. Hinman, 2 Gilman, 443-449.
2 Graves v. Bruen, 11 Ill. 431.
Whitney v. Thomas, 23 N. Y. 281.

4 Buffalo & State L. R. R. Co. v. Supervisors of Erie Co. 48 N. Y. 93.

5 Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 52.

Lyman v. City of Philadelphia, 56 Penn. St. 488, 499; Agnew, J., Greenough v. Fulton Coal Co. 74 Penn. St. 486.

must be ascertained from what is written. The question is not one of intention, but one of fact-what did the assessors do? which is the

specific lot on which the tax is laid? These questions must be an

swered from the record.1

The statute in Arkansas requires resident tax-payers to give a list describing each tract or lot separately, with its value, and non-residents to file such list with the auditor of public accounts, and upon failure of either, the assessor is to ascertain the lands by the best means in his power, and assess them at double their value. The statute also provides that no sale of lands for non-payment of taxes shall be considered invalid on account of its having been charged on the book in any other name than that of the rightful owner, if the land be otherwise sufficiently described in the tax-book, and the taxes due and unpaid at the time of sale. The agent of a resident owner omitted to give the list required, and the assessor from information obtained assessed the land as non-resident, to a person not the owner. Such an assessment was sustained, and the name of the owner was thought comparatively unimportant, if the land be sufficiently described to be identified.2

Separate Tracts.-Unimproved lands lying in separate tracts must be assessed and valued separately. City lots should be assessed separately, and in Wisconsin, under their statute, each tract must be separately assessed and valued. But where there are contiguous tracts held under one deed, they are to be taken as one tract, and in the case cited the court held that the owner should list the whole tract in the county in which he resided, though the tracts were in different counties and separated by a river. Listing several tracts of land to a person as one tract, when he only owns one of the tracts, is invalid, and this doctrine of the invalidity of the assessment of several lots or tracts owned by different persons to one of those persons, applies to the case of husband and wife, when the wife has a separate estate in one of the lots, and the whole is assessed to the husband. The same principle applies to lots and parts of lots in a town; each owner must

1 Greene v. Lunt, 58 Maine, 518; Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. 418. Kinsworthy v. Mitchell, 21 Ark. 145.

4 Terrill v. Groves, 18 Cal. 149;

33 Ind. 30.

3 Shimmins v. Inman, 26 Maine, 228.

v. Scoville, 9 Ohio, 43; Romig v. La Fayette,

s. P. Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Distinct tracts of the same owner should be

5 State v. Supervisors of La Fayette Co. 3 Wisc. 712 Ill. 410; Hayden v. Forster, 13 Pick. 492.

assessed separately.

6 Hairston v. Stinson, 13 Ired. 479; s. P. contiguous tracts of unseated land, Russell v. Werntz, 24 Penn. St. 337.

Crane v. City of Janesville, 20 Wisc. 321; Hamilton v. The City of Fond du Lac, 25 Wisc. 490; Orton v. Noonan, Id. 672.

be assessed for that which belongs to him, and the assessment of the whole to one is void.1

This doctrine does not apply to tenants in common who have each an individual interest in the whole; in such case the whole tract is properly assessed to all as one person. Where 27,936 acres were assessed to 100 persons, without designating the interest of any of them, such an assessment was treated as an assessment to them as joint tenants or tenants in common. In Arkansas, the interest of tenants in common may be assessed separately, and upon default of one his interest may be sold."

The proper description of property on the roll is of the first importance, for if it is not sufficiently described, all the subsequent proceedings for the collection of the tax are invalid. A lease of land for 99 years and renewable, is assessed as personalty and not as real estate in Kentucky.5

1 Knox v. Huidekoper, 21 Wisc. 527; Barker v. Blake, 36 Maine, 433.

2 People v. McEwen, 23 Cal. 54; Hubbard v. Winson, 15 Mich. 146.

3 People v. Shimmins, 42 Cal. 121, action for taxes.

CHAPTER XII.

ASSESSMENT.

§ 97. What Persons and Property to be placed on the RollDomicile, Residence, &c.—From the nature of their duties as to land, assessors are to list such lands only as are situate within the district for which they are authorized to act, whether it be a ward, township or county. The listing of lands lying wholly without their respective districts is void. The division lines of counties, or townships, often divide tracts of lands; in such case the place in which it is to be listed is usually solved by the construction of the statute of the particular State. In New York the statute requires every person to be assessed in the town or ward in which he resides, for all lands owned by him in such town or ward, and there a tract divided by a town line is assessed only in the town in which the owner or occupant resides.*

In New Jersey, by statute, a farm divided by township or county lines, is assessed if occupied in the township or ward in which the occupant resides; if unoccupied, each part is assessed to the owner in the township in which he resides. A. owned a farm divided by a town line; there was a dwelling-house in each town, one occupied by the owner and the other by his son, who cultivated that part of the farm on shares; each part was considered in the occupancy of the owner, and properly assessed to him in the town of his residence. A farm similarly situated, left in charge of a servant, is not unoccupied in the sense of the statute, and is to be assessed in the same manner.* A person owned a tract of 290 acres, 220 acres in the town of W., and 70 acres in the town of R. He did not reside on the tract, but on other land in W., and the whole farm was cultivated on shares with P., who resided in the town of R. The mansion house in the town. of R. was occupied by tenants having no connection with the farm. It was held that the mansion house in R. should have been assessed to

1 Toby v. Haggerty, 23 Ark. 370.

Saunders v. Springsteen, 4 Wend. 429; s. P. as to seated lands. Ellis v. Hall, 7 Harr. 292; contra, unseated, Patton v. Long, 68 Penn. St. 262; Dorn v. Backer, 61 N. Y. 26; Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264.

3 State v. Hoffman, 30 N. J. Law, 346.

4 State v. Reinhardt, 31 N. J. Law, 218.