justice. Such taxes may be imposed as stamp fees on process, or fees for permission to enter suits, etc.,2 or they may be imposed upon the unsuccessful party.3 Arbitrary exactions imposed without reference to the nature or extent of the proceeding, however, are violative of constitutional provisions requiring equality of taxation and the free dispensation of justice without purchase.4 VII. UPON WHOM IMPOSED-1. General Principles.-Taxation being imposed in consideration of the protection afforded the individual and his property, the individual is personally charged with the tax. The rule is otherwise as to the unoccupied lands of 1. Lee County v. Abrahams, 34 Ark. 166, citing Murphy v.State, 38 Ark. 514. Tax on Civil Suits.-The settlement of an estate in the probate court is not a civil suit, within the meaning of a constitutional provision authorizing the legislature to impose taxes on civil suits. State v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469; Nunnemacher v. Mann, 76 Wis. 498. Constitutional Restrictions.-The imposition of a tax upon parties commencing suits in court, does not violate a constitutional provision that the mode of levying taxes shall be by valuation. State v. Lancaster County, 4 Neb. 537. The constitutional right to obtain justice freely and without purchase, has never been understood to be a right to judicial proceedings carried on without expense to the parties. State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232. And see Adams v.. Corriston, 7 Minn. 456; Perce v. Hallet, 13 R. I. 363. 2. Lee County v. Abrahams, 34 Ark. 166. And see State 2'. Lancaster County, 4 Neb. 537. The state may require the payment of a tax as a condition precedent to the use of its process. Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 35; Robertson v. Land Com'rs, 44 Mich. 274. In Smith v. Waters, 25 Ind. 397, it was held that if a revenue stamp is required by law to be attached to a replevin bond, the failure to attach it furnishes no ground for dismissing an appeal in the action in which the bond is required; but that a replevin bond is neither a writ nor process within the meaning of the revenue law. When the Tax Accrues.-A tax upon a law suit accrues when the suit is commenced, and must be paid, although the suit was compromised and dismissed before it had come to an issue. Nashville v. Davis, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 474; Elliston v. Winstead, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 472. 3. Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 32; Nashville v. Davis, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 474; Elliston v. Winstead, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 472; State v. Stanley, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 524; State v. Nance, I Lea (Tenn.) 644. A tax imposed on each criminal conviction is a mode of making persons convicted of crime contribute to defray the expense of public prosecutions, and is constitutional. Myrtle v. State, 38 Ark. 514. Proceedings to recover fines for violation of the ordinances of a town are not "criminal cases" within the meaning of a statute which imposes a tax on such cases, payable to the state. State v. Mason, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 649. 4. State v. Gorman, 40 Minn. 232. In this case a statute, requiring as a condition precedent to probate proceedings the payment of specific sums arbitrarily prescribed with reference to the value of the estate, was held unconstitutional. 5. Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; People v. Seymour, 16 Cal. 332; 76 Am. Dec. 521; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; Mercier's Succession, 42 La. Ann. 1135; Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 517; Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N. Y. 346; Bennett v. Buffalo, 17 N. Y. 383; Chapman v. Brooklyn, 40 N. Y. 377; Miller v. Gorman, 38 Pa. St. 3o9; Sheaffer 7. McKabe, 2 Watts (Pa.) 421; Harbeson v. Jack, 2 Watts (Pa.) 124; Kennedy v. Daily, 6 Watts (Pa.) 269; Stokely v. Boner, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 254; Ellis v. Hall, 19 Pa. St. 296; McKibbin v. Charlton, 14 Pa. St. 128; State v. Leavenworth County, 2 Kan. 61; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; Sherwin v. Boston, etc., Sav. Bank, I 137 Mass. 444; Cochran v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29; 8 Am. Rep. 296; Burr v. Wilcox, 13 Allen (Mass.) 269; Meredith v. U. S., 13 Pet. (U. S.) 486. non-residents, taxes upon such lands generally being a charge upon the land alone. 3 Every resident of the taxing district,2 and every person owning property or transacting business therein, is liable to taxation. Thus, aliens, non-residents, minors, corporations,8 women,9 and persons non compos mentis,10 may be taxed. The right to tax is not dependent upon citizenship.11 Indians The assessment of a tax against an individual creates not only a lien on his property, but also a personal obligation to the full amount of the tax. New Orleans v. Day, 29 La. Ann. 416. 1. See infra, this title, Non-resident and Unseated Property. As a general rule, however, taxes are imposed upon the individual on account of his ownership of the property. Rundell v. Lakey, 40 N. Y. 517; Mercier's Succession, 42 La. Ann. 1135; Meredith v. U. S., 13 Pet. (U. S.) 436. But when property is resorted to, it is for the purpose of ascertaining the amount with which the owner should be charged, Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; State v. Vanderbilt, 33 N. J. L. 38; Mercier's Succession, 42 La. Ann. 1135; or to facilitate the collection of taxes. See Green v. Gruber, 26 La. Ann. 694. Local Assessments.-As to whether a local assessment for benefits is a personal charge upon the owner of the property, see infra, this title, Local Assessments. 2. Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406; 20 Am. Rep. 654; Pullen v. Wake County, 66 N. Car. 361; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152. 3. Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406; 20 Am. Rep. 654; Padelford v. Savannah, 14 Ga. 438; Jones v. Columbus, 25 Ga. 610; Duer v. Small, 17 How. Pr. (U.S. C. C.) 201; Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N. Y. 339; People v. Tax Com'rs, 23 N. Y. 224; Harrison v. Vicksburg, 3 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 581; Worth v. Fayetteville, Winst. Eq. (N. Car.) 70; State v. Charleston, 2 Spears (S. Car.) 623; Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152; Turner v. Burlington, 16 Mass. 208; Coburn v. Richardson, 16 Mass. 212; Shriver v. Pittsburg, 66 Pa. St. 446; Bennett v. Birmingham, 31 Pa. St. 15; Ahl v. Gleim, 52 Pa. St. 432. Non residents of a state, as well as residents, are liable to taxation in respect to stock held by them in corporations within the state. Appeal Tax Cases, 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 117. And see Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 368. 4. Duer v. Small, 17 How. Pr. (U. S. C. C.) 201; Tazewell County v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 197; Padelford v. Savannah, 14 Ga. 438; Pearce v. Augusta, 37 Ga. 597; McCutchen v. Rice County, 7 Fed. Rep. 558. Statutes authorizing the same taxes upon non-residents pursuing their ordinary avocations within the corporation as upon inhabitants, authorize a tax upon the shares in the national bank located in the town, and held by one who conducts his ordinary business therein, but whose residence is outside the corporate limits. Moore v. Fayetteville, So N. Car. 154. 5. Frantz's Appeal, 52 Pa. St. 367; Tazewell County v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 204. 6. Moore v. Fayetteville, So N. Car. 154; Ahl v. Gleim, 52 Pa. St. 432; Tazewell County v. Davenport, 40 Ill. 204; Duer v. Small, 17 How. Pr. (U. S. C. C.) 201; State v. Charleston, 4 Strobh. (S. Car.) 217. 7. Moore v. Fayetteville, 80 N. Car. 154; Smith v. Macon, 20 Ark. 17; Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435. 8. See TAXATION (CORPORATE). As to the word "person" including a corporation, see PERSON, vol. 18, p. 404. 9. Moore v. Fayetteville, So N. Car. 154; Smith v. Macon, 20 Ark. 17; Wheeler v. Wall, 6 Allen (Mass.) 558; Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435. Taxation Without Representation.The maxim that taxation and representation should go together, has no application to individuals, but only to political communities as such. Moore v. Fayetteville, 80 N. Car. 154; Wheeler v. Wall, 6 Allen (Mass.) 558; Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 317. 10. See Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435. 11. Kuntz v. Davidson County, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 65; Tazewell County v. Dayenport, 40 Ill. 197; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406; 20 Am. Rep. 654. who are not citizens and who preserve their tribal relations, are not liable to taxation.1 2. Property, to Whom Taxed-a. GENERALLY.-The state may declare that property shall be chargeable with taxes, no matter who is the owner or to whom it is taxed. It is usually required that property be taxed against the owner or occupant. And in case of a reasonable doubt as to the ownership, it may be charged to unknown owners or to persons unknown. Where there are several interests in the land, as of a tenant in possession or remainderman, the party in possession may be charged. Partnership property is taxable to the partnership as such, and not to the individual partners. 1. State v. Ross, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 74. See infra, this title, Indian Lands. The rule is different as to civilized Indians whose tribal relations have been dissolved. Hilgers v. Quinney, 51 Wis. 62. 2. Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 210; Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss. 135; Kennedy v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 62 Ill. 395. 3. See Nashua Sav. Bank v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 389; Cornish Bridge v. Richardson, 8 N. H. 207; Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; Blatner v. Davis, 32 Cal. 328; Bosworth v. Webster, 64 Cal. 1; Smith v. Read, 51 Conn. 10; Mullikin v. Reeves, 71 Ind. 281; Bell v. Fry, 5 Dana (Ky.) 341; Hayes v. Viator, 33 La. Ann. 1162; Thibodaux v. Keller, 29 La. Ann. 508; LeBlanc v. Blodgett, 34 La. Ann. 107; Desmond v. Babbitt, 117 Mass. 233; Pease v. Whitney, 5 Mass. 580; Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss. 135; Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; Lyman v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367; State v. Union Tp., 36 N. J. L. 309; State v. Hardin, 34 N. J. L. 79; Morrison v. McLauchlin, 88 N. Car. 251; Willard v. Blount, 11 Ired. (N. Car.) 624; Pitts v. Booth, 15 Tex. 453; Yenda Wheeler, 9 Tex. 408; Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. Rep. 69; Greenwalt v. Tucker, 3 McCrary (U. S.) 166; Moss v. Hinds, 29 Vt. 188; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51. As to who is an owner within the tax laws, see infra, this title, Owner ship; and OwNER, vol. 17, p. 299. The owner of unoccupied land must pay to the state, taxes lawfully imposed thereon. Blackwood v. Van Vliet, 30 Mich. 118. And see Oldtown v. Blake, 74 Me. 280. 4. Smith v. Read, 51 Conn. 10; Southworth v. Edmands, 152 Mass. 203; Pease v. Whitney, 5 Mass. 380; Zink Taxes upon property owned in v. McManus, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 583; Willard v. Blount, 11 Ired. (N. Car.) 624; Bemis v. Phelps, 41 Vt. 1. And see Kelsey v. Abbott, 13 Cal. 609; Burpee v. Russell, 64 N. H. 62; Perham v. Haverhill Fibre Co., 64 N. H. 2; Butler v. Oswego, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 592; Lynde v. Brown, 143 Mass. 337. See infra, this title, Occupancy. 5. French v. Spalding, 61 N. H. 395. And see Burpee v. Russell, 64 N. H. 62. The right of an assessor, to estimate property which he cannot find, does not authorize the assessment against one of property belonging to another. State v. Sherrer, 49 N. J. L. 610. Double Assessment.-When land is assessed to the owner and also to owner unknown" for the same tax, the latter assessment is void, and a sale thereunder confers no title upon the purchaser. Nichols v. McGlathery, 43 Iowa 189. 6. See infra, this title, Particular Estates. 7. Hubbard v. Winsor, 15 Mich. 146; Hill v. Graham, 72 Mich. 659; McCoy v. Anderson, 47 Mich. 502; Williams v. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120; Thibodaux v. Keller, 29 La. Ann. 508; Ricker v. American Loan, etc., Co., 140 Mass. 346; Van Dyke v. Carlton, 61 N. H. 574. And see Stockwell v. Brewer, 59 Me. 286; People v. Ferguson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 102; Wheeler v. Anthony, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 346; Robinson υ. Ward, 13 Ohio St. 293. Where a partnership business continues after the death of one of the partners, the property should be listed for taxation in the firm name. Blodgett v. Muskegon, 60 Mich. 580. So after dissolution, and during the process of winding up. Putman v. Fife Lake Tp., 45 Mich. 125; People v. Sneath, 28 Cal. 612. common should be imposed upon all the common owners, though the imposition of a tax upon the individual interest of each has been upheld.2 b. OWNERSHIP. The owner of property, for the purposes of taxation, is the person having the legal title thereto.3 One who, by contract or otherwise, has a mere equity in the premises, is not an owner within the tax laws. But the owner of an equitable estate may be taxed.5 The fact that the title is conditional and In People v. Coleman, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 20, it was held that the executors of a deceased member of a partnership are not taxable before anything becomes due to them from the surviving members of the firm. A retiring partner need not give notice in order to relieve himself from liability for taxes afterwards imposed, Washburn v. Walworth, 133 Mass. 499; and an incoming partner becomes liable for the taxes assessed upon the share of the outgoing partner of whom he purchased. Wheat v. Hamilton, 53 Ind. 256. 1. See Hayes v. Viator, 33 La. Ann. 1162; People v. McEwen, 23 Cal. 54; Jenkins v. Rice, 84 Ind. 342. In Mercier's Succession, 42 La. Ann. 1135, it was held that taxes assessed against two persons as joint owners, constitute a general personal obligation against them. 2. See Payne v. Danley, 18 Ark. 441; 68 Am. Dec. 187; State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502. 3. Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. Rep. 69; Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 36 Me. 255; Miner v. Pingree, 110 Mass. 47; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; State v. Newark, 50 N. J. L. 66. See also Waltham Bank v. Waltham, 10 Met. (Mass.) 334; Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113. In Osterhout v. Jones, 54 Mich. 228, however, it was held that lumber awaiting transportation to the vendee, is not taxable to him if it is still to be assorted and inspected by the vendor and further payment is to be made. Where lands are held under a parol gift not consummated by deed, they belong and must be assessed to the donor, even though the donee is in possession. Mullikin v. Reeves, 71 Ind. 281. And the same rule applies generally to personal property. See Ratterman v. Ingalls, 48 Ohio St. 468. Lessee. Thus, a lessee is not an Owner. State v. St. Louis County Ct., 13 Mo. App. 53; State v. Blundell, 24 N. J. L. 402. By statute, in Texas, à Unrecorded Deed.-The taxes should be paid by him in possession of the land under a grant or deed, although the same is not recorded. Francis v. Washbum, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 294. 4. Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. Rep. 69; Churchill v. Sowards, 78 Iowa 472; Butler v. Stark, 139 Mass. 19; State v. St. Louis County, 84 Mo. 234; Taylor v. Robinson, 72 Tex. 364; Pitts v. Booth, 15 Tex 453. Thus, where one has no taxable interest in the property, but merely a joint use thereof with the owner, he is not taxable. Irvin v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 94 Ill. 105. A Way. So the land upon which one has reserved a right of way is taxable to the owner of the fee and not to the possessor of the way. Winston v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 398. Vendee in Possession.-It has been held that a vendee of realty in possession under a contract of sale at the date of the assessment is the real owner for purposes of taxation, whether he holds a legal title or not. Anderson v. Harvard, 47 Mo. App. 660; Farber v. Purdy, 69 Mo. 601; Wells v. Savannah, 87 Ga. 397; Taylor v. Robinson, 34 Fed. Rep. 678. And a railroad company which has acquired the right to perpetual possession of land, has been held the owner for purposes of taxation, although it has not a legal title. Muscatine. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 79 Iowa 645. 5. Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, I Wash. Ter. 159; State v. Board of Railroad Com'rs, 41 N. J. L. 235; Green v. Watson, 34 Pa. St. 332. If land has been taxed to the bene subject to be divested by redemption or otherwise, does not affect the taxability of the owner.1 In ascertaining the ownership for the purposes of taxation, the record title controls; 2 and it is not necessary to investigate the proceedings pertaining to the title claimed in order to determine the question of the validity of the record.3 Persons who own the property at the time of the assessment are the ones upon whom the tax is imposed, irrespective of prior or subsequent changes of ownership.4 c. OCCUPANCY.-An occupant, within the tax laws, is one who has the actual and exclusive use and possession of a thing. It is ficial owner, 1. Butler v. Stark, 139 Mass. 19; State v. Mississippi River Bridge Co., 109 Mo. 253; Maina v. Elliott, 51 Cal. 8; Ralston 7. Hughes, 13 III. 469; Greenwalt v. Tucker, 3 McCrary (Ú. S.) 166. And see Brent v. New Orleans, 41 La. Ann. 1098. The contrary was held in Central Pac. R. Co. v. Howard, 52 Cal. 227. A party cannot be relieved from the payment of taxes and assessments on the ground that someone else might have an outstanding title to the property taxed. It is sufficient that he claims and possesses as owner. Selby v. Levee Com'rs, 14 La. Ann. 437. And see infra, this title, Particular Estates. But in Trammell v. Faught, 74 Tex. 557, it was held that where the state reserved the right to terminate a lease of public lands at will, the lands were not taxable to the tenant under the Texas statute. 2. Gee v. Clark, 42 La. Ann. 919; Butler v. Stark, 139 Mass. 19; Finney v. Boyd, 26 Wis. 366. A statute providing that the record owner should be deemed the true owner for taxation purposes, does not authorize an assessment in the name of a record owner who died previous to such assessment. Sawyer v. Mackie, 149 Mass. 269. 3. Mason v. Bemiss, 38 La. Ann. 935. And see French v. Spalding, 61 N. H. 395. The government, in taxing land, does not attempt to determine in whom the title vests, but leaves such determination to the parties interested. Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, Wash. Ter. 159. An assessor is not required to look into the secret ownership of personal property, but may assess it against the apparent owner by possession or muniment of title. The North Cape, 6 Biss. (U.S.) 505. 4. State v. Union Tp., 36 N. J. L. 309; State v. Hardin, 34 N. J. L. 79; State v. Jersey City, 44 N. J. L. 156; San Gabriel Valley, etc., Co. v. Witmer, 96 Cal. 623; Čampbell v. Quackenbush (Cal. 1892), 31 Pac. Rep. 746; Russell . Mandell, 73 Ill. 136; Biggins v. People, 96 Ill. 381; Anderson v. Harwood, 47 Mo. App. 660; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; Washburn v. Walworth, 133 Mass. 499; C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Loraine, 22 Fed. Rep. 54. And see Sully v. Poorbaugh, 45 Iowa 453; Tallman v. Butler County, 12 Iowa 531; People v. McComber (Supreme Ct.), 7 Ñ. Y. Supp. 71. See also Templeton v. Levee Com'rs, 16 La. Ann. 117; McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130; State v. Williamson, 33 N. J. L. 77; Bemis v. Phelps, 41 Vt. 1; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Lincoln County, 57 Wis. 137. Taxes on real estate cannot be apportioned among the different persons who may become owners of it during the year. The person charged at the beginning of the tax year is liable for the taxes of the whole year, even though he disposes of the property before the day of appeal. Shaw v. Quinn, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 299; Densmore v. Haggerty, 59 Pa. St. 189. Where a change in ownership is a mere device to escape taxation, the rule may be different. Jones v. Seward County, 10 Neb. 154. 5. See Redfield v. Utica, etc., R. Co., 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 54; National F. Ins. Co. v. McKay, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 445; Bangor v. Rowe, 57 Me. 439; Veerhusen v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Wis. 689. See also OCCUPANCY, OCCUPANT, vol. 17, pp. 28, 29. In Flax Pond Water Co. v. Lynn, |