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.

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. And 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, 1 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 66 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. 2775 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

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. v. 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 Dailey, 66 Wis. 285.

21.

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), 11 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. Lawrencev. People, 84 Ill. 142. But see Stiles v. 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 Ill. 502.

4. McLanahan v. Syracuse, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 259; Orange County Bank v. 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 v. 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, S9 Ill. 282; Crutcher v. Sterling, 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

an evidence that the taxes were paid. Kahl v. Love, 37 N. J. L. 5. See also Koones v. District of Columbia, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 339

In Dickson v. Gamble, 16 Fla. 687, it was held that a tax collector cannot enforce a note given him for taxes, particularly where it does not appear that he paid or discharged the taxes at the request of the maker. And in Thorndike v. Camden, 82 Me. 39, it was held that a township cannot impose a tax to reimburse a collector who has taken a note in payment of a tax and failed to collect it.

In Trenholm v. Charleston, 3 S. Car. 347; 16 Am. Rep. 732, it was held that plaintiff could not compel the municipality to accept a debt due by it, in payment of taxes. And in Sawyer v. Springfield, 40 Vt. 305, it was held that where a tax collector takes a town order in payment of taxes, it must be regarded as a personal matter, and not as a payment of the order.

Though payment in an illegal and void currency is a nullity, the collector does not thereby acquire any personal right of action for the recovery of the amount. Richards v. Stogsdell, 21

Ind. 74

Payment in Coin Alone.-Sometimes, taxes have been made payable in coin alone. Whiteaker v. Haley, 2 Oregon 140; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Prescott v. McNamara, 73 Cal. 236.

1. English v. Oliver, 28 Ark. 317; Askew v. Columbia County, 32 Ark. 270; Lea v. Memphis, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 103; Marinette v. Oconto County, 47 Wis. 216; Lee v. Harlow, 75 Va. 22.

Under the Arkansas statutes, the orders of school trustees are receivable for school taxes of the district for which they were issued, but not for county taxes; and county warrants are receivable for county taxes, but not for district school taxes. Wallis v. Smith, 29 Ark. 354. And the legislature cannot make the certificates of state indebtedness and auditor's warrants receivable in payment of county or school district taxes. Wells v. Cole, 27 Ark. 603. Where county warrants are made receivable for taxes by the constitution, they are not receivable in payment of a tax levied to pay an indebtedness ex

isting prior to the adoption of the constitution. Loftin v. Watson, 32 Ark. 415

Where county orders are received by a town treasurer for county taxes, it operates as a payment of the orders as well as the tax, and when so received they belong to the county and not to the town. Marinette v. Oconto County, 47 Wis. 216.

In Askew v. Columbia County, 32 Ark. 271, it was held that a collector who collects a tax in currency and pays it to the treasurer in county warrants, releases himself from official liability.

Under the California statute of 1868, levee taxes might be paid either with warrants of the district drawn upon by the levee fund, or with money. Prescott v. McNamara, 73 Cal. 736.

2. Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 270; Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 44 ;English v. Oliver, 28 Ark. 317; Askew v. Columbia County, 32 Ark. 270; Danley v. Pike, 15 Ark. 141; Loftin v. Watson, 32 Ark. 415; Fuller v. State, 73 Ga. 408; Clark v. Keith, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 703; Williamson v. Massey, 33. Gratt. (Va.) 239; Antoni v. Wright, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 833.

In Daniel v. Askew, 36 Ark. 487, it was held that a collector who is required to take county scrip in payment of taxes, cannot refuse it because it is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

But the privilege of paying in something other than a legal-tender medium is strictly limited to the terms of the statute granting it, Wallis v. Smith, 29. Ark. 354; and has been held to extend only to payments made within the time prescribed by law, and not to payments made after default. Bummel v. Houston, 68 Tex. 10.

3. See Adams v. Beale, 19 Iowa 61; Harrison v. Sauerwein, 70 Iowa 291; Dennett v. Crocker, 8 Me. 239.

The letters "pd." on the county treasurer's book opposite the amount for which the land was sold, without. any evidence that the taxes were paid before the sale, are not of themselves evidence of payment previous thereto. Ankeny v. Albright, 20 Pa. St. 157. And see Ambler 2. Clayton, 23. Iowa 173.

4. Johnstone v. Scott, 11 Mich. 232;