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 Înd. 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, a

tenant for three years or more is to be considered the owner. Taylor v. Robinson, 34 Fed. Rep. 678.

Sewing machines leased by the owner, subject to resumption in case of failure to pay, are properly taxable to him. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Essex County, 139 Mass. 266.

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.

real

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 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 v. 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

ficial owner, a subsequent sale for non-payment of the tax by the legal owner, is void. Whitham v. Sayers, 9 W. Va. 671.

1. Butler v. Stark,. 139 Mass. 19; State v. Mississippi River Bridge Co., 109 Mo. 253; Maina v. Elliott, 51 Cal. 8; Ralston v. Hughes, 13 Ill. 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 Sawyer v. Mackie, 149

assessment. 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, 1 Wash. Ter. 159.

An assessor is not required to look into the secret ownership of personal

It is

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 v. 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 N. 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,

147 Mass. 31, it was held that a company in possession of dams which cause water to cover real estate of which it is not the owner, is liable for the taxes on such real estate.

A tenant is not an occupier unless he can maintain trespass. State v. Abbott, 42 N. J. L. 111. And in Weyse v. Crawford, 85 Cal. 196, it was held that a warehouseman was not in the possession of the property within the California statute.

A husband residing with wife upon the wife's separate property, has been held an occupant, for purposes of taxation. Southworth v. Edmands, 152 Mass. 207; Paul v. Fries, 18 Fla. 586. A contrary decision was arrived at in Hamilton v. Fond du Lac, 25 Wis. 496. This is noticed and disapproved in the Massachusetts and Florida cases. In Smith v. Read, 51 Conn. 11, it was decided that a husband not living upon the property was not an occupant.

1. See Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 586; State v. Reinhardt, 31 N. J. L. 218; State v. Hoffman, 30 N. J. L. 346; Spangler . York County, 13 Pa. St. 322. And see also OCCUPANT, vol. 17, p. 29.

Paying wharfage on manufactured lumber, or hiring logs to be sawed at a mill, does not constitute the person an occupant of the sawmill. Campbell v. Machias, 33 Me. 419.

An assessor will not be chargeable with bad faith for assessing pasture land, upon which there is no dwelling house, to the owner and not to the real occupant. Massing v. Ames, 37 Wis.645. An entry and survey of land is sufficient evidence of possession. Little v. Downing, 37 N. H. 355.

2. Parker v. Baxter, 2 Gray (Mass.) 185; Flax Pond Water Co. v. Lynn, 147 Mass. 31; State v. Massaker, 26 N. J. L. 564; Turner v. Smith, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 553; Biscoe v. Coulter, 18 Ark. 423; Merrick v. Hutt, 15 Ark. 331; Atkins v. Hinman, 7 Ill. 447; Blackwood v. Van Vliet, 30 Mich. 118; Willard v. Blount, 11 Ired. (N. Car.) 624; Brown v. Austin, 41 Vt. 262.

A party enjoying the present use of the land is liable for the taxes thereon, unless the language of the statute imposing the tax is repugnant to such liability. Spangler v. York County, 13 Pa. St. 322.

Tenant for Life.-Taxes are chargeable against a tenant for life. Garland v. Garland, 73 Me. 97; Varney v. Stevens, 22 Me. 331; Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 106 Mass. 544; Fleet v. Dorland, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 489; Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 312; Carter v. Youngs, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 422; Willard v. Blount, II Ired. (N. Car.) 624; In re Cox, 36 N. J. Eq. 448; Weaver v. Arnold, .15 R. I. 53; Whyte v. Nashville, 2

Swan (Tenn.) 364; Webb v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 188. And see Bidwell v. Greensheild, 2 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 427; King v. King, 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 518; Gillespie v. Brooks, 2 Redf. (N. Y.) 364; Peck v. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615; Anderson 7 Hensley, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 834; Matter of Babcock, 115 N. Y. 450.

A conditional or determinable fee is not taxable to the reversioner. Connecticut Spiritualistic, etc., Assoc. v. East Lynne, 54 Conn. 152. And see Huck v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Ill. 352.

Bridge Franchise.-A grant of a bridge franchise, to a person for twenty-five years with reversion to the city, is taxable to the grantee. Fall v. Marysville, 19 Cal. 391.

Mortgages.-So lands and chattels may be assessed, regardless of the mortgages upon them. Allen v. Harford County, 74 Md. 294; Central Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 35; Parker v. Baxter, 2 Gray (Mass.) 185; State v. Grey, 29 N. J. L. 380; Morrison v. Manchester, 58 Ñ. H. 538; Fagen v. Campbell, 5 Watts (Pa.) 287; Fields v. Russell, 38 Kan. 720. And see Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319; Baltimore v. Canton Co., 63 Md. 237; State v. Massaker, 26 N. J. L. 564; Ralston v. Hughes, 13 Ill. 469; Greenwalt v. Tucker, 3 McCrary

(U.S.) 166. This rule would not be affected by the fact that a mortgage upon the land taxed or bonds secured by mortgage thereon were held and taxed in another jurisdiction. State v. Massaker, 25 N. J. L. 531.

1. See infra, this title, Tax Liens; Merrick v. Hutt, 15 Ark. 331; Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13; Fager v. Campbell, 5 Watts (Pa.) 287.

2. See Washington Market v. District of Columbia, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 416; Sanderson v. Scranton, 105 Pa. St. 469; Allegheny County v. McKeesport Diamond Market, 123 Pa. St. 164; Trammell v. Faught, 74 Tex. 557; Pease v. Whitney, 5 Mass. 380; Merrill v. Champagne Lumber Co., 75 Wis. 142; Taylor v. Robinson, 34 Fed. Rep. 678.

In Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. State, 60 N. H. 133, it was held that a railroad leased for 99 years may be taxed either to the lessor or to the lessee.

3. See Detroit v. Board of Assessors, 91 Mich. 78; Shoemaker v. The Bank, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 297.

In Coombs v. Warren, 34 Me. 89, it was held that a mortgagee not in possession could not be taxed for land. See Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182, as to the remedy of a mortgagee of personal property when taxed. And generally, a mortgagor, and not the mortgagee, when not in possession, is considered the owner for taxation purposes. Waltham Bank v. Waltham, Io Met. (Mass.) 334.

4. But as between the parties to the bond, the one taking the rents and profits, or enjoying the use for the time being, is liable for the taxes. National Bank v. Danforth, 80 Ga. 55. 5. See McLaughlin v. Kain, 45 Pa. St. 113; Logan v. Washington County,

29 Pa. St. 373; Oldhams v. Jones, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 458; Dunn v. Winston, 31 Miss. 135;. Laflin 7. Herrington, 16 Ill. 301.

The interest of a remainderman in a fund, which is to take effect in possession after the death of a life annuitant, may be taxed. See State v. Melroy (N. J. 1890), 19 Atl. Rep. 732.

6. Payne . Danley, 18 Ark. 441; 68 Am. Dec. 187; Williams v. Brace, 5 Conn. 190.

7. State v. Runyon, 41 N. J. L. 98; In re Cox, 36 N. J. Eq. 448; State v. Massaker, 25 N. J. L. 531; Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 107; Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182. See also Detroit v. Board of Assessors, 91 Mich. 78.

8. Logan v. Washington County, 29 Pa. St. 373; Irvin v. Bank of U. S., 1 Pa. St. 349. And see Daugherty v. Thompson, 71 Tex. 192; State v. Taylor (Tex. 1888), 12 S. W. Rep. 176.

But the owner of a ground rent in fee is not liable for any of the taxes assessed on the land out of which the rent issues. Philadelphia Library Co. 7. Ingham, I Whart. (Pa.) 72.

Whether there is such an estate in the lessee of a part of a building as amounts to interest in the realty, and whether, in such case, the lessee should pay the taxes upon the part occupied by him, is to be determined by the terms of the lease. Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St. 276.

9. Smith 7. New York, 68 N. Y. 552; People v. Board of Assessors, 93 N. Y. 308; People v. Sierra Buttes Quartz Min. Co., 39 Cal. 511; San Francisco . McGinn, 67 Cal. 110; Hayden v. Foster, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 497; Gorrell . Murphy, 1 Pa. Leg. Gaz. 495; Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St. 276; Consolidated

Coal Co. v. Baker, 135 Ill. 545; In re Major, 134 Ill. 19; People v.Tax Com'rs, 82 N. Y. 459; Major v. Pavey (Ill.), 24 N. E. Rep. 973; Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762; Flax Pond Water Co. v. Lynn, 147 Mass. 131; Mill v. Lacey, 110 Pa. St. 294; Sanderson v. Scranton, 105 Pa. St. 469; Stuart v. Com. (Ky.), 23 S. W. Rep. 367; Milligan v. Drury, 130 Mass. 428; McGee Salem, 149 Mass. 238; State v. Mississippi Bridge Co., 109 Mo. 253; Lowell v. Middlesex County, 152 Mass. 372.

v.

For the purpose of taxation, improvements erected by a lessee, upon lands owned by and leased from a municipal corporation, are regarded as the property of the lessee. San Francisco v. McGinn, 67 Cal. 110.

Where the owner of mining land has sold the right to take all the minerals from the land, but has retained the land, the owner of the land and the owner of the minerals are each taxable according to their several interests. Logan v. Washington County, 29 Pa. St. 373; Sanderson v. Scranton, 105 Pa. St. 469.

1. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Gilford,64 N. H. 337; Lowell v. Middlesex County, 152 Mass. 372; Bellows Falls Canal Co. v. Rockingham, 37 Vt. 622.

In Boston Mfg. Co. v. Newton, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 22, it was held that water power for mill purposes when not used cannot be taxed independent of the land.

2. Graves v. Cochran, 68 Mo. 74; Moore v. White, 61 Mo. 442; Deitz v. Beard, 2 Watts (Pa.) 170; Felch v. Finch, 52 Iowa 566; Huston v. Seeley, 27 Iowa 183; Williams v. Cox, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 178; Harrison v. Peck, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 251; Taylor v. Bentley, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 34. And see O'Farrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381; Branson v. Yancy, 1 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 77. See also Bidwell v. Greensheild, 2 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 427.

3. Carlisle v. Marshall, 36 Pa. St.

397; Greene v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 313; Smith v. Byers, 43 Ga. 191; Hardy v. Yarmouth, 6 Allen (Mass.) 277; Miner v. Pingree, 110 Mass. 47; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; People v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 533; Baltimore v. Stirling, 29 Md. 48; Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13; People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390; Townbridge v. Horan, 78 N. Y. 439; People v. Board of Assessors, 40 N. Y. 154; Duvall v. English Evangelical, etc., Church, 53 N. Y. 500; State v. Matthews, 10 Ohio St. 437.

Notes, mortgages, etc., though outside of the taxing district, are liable to taxation in the district in which the executor resides. Johnson v. Oregon City, 2 Oregon 327. See State v. Jones, 39 N. J. L. 650.

Property situated and held by trustees residing in a taxing district, may properly be assessed to the trustees, where the beneficiary is a non-resident. People v. Home Ins. Co., 29 Cal. 534; Price v. Hunter, 34 Fed. Rep. 355. But where the property is not in the district, though the trustee is, he is not taxable. Lewis v. Chester County, 60 Pa. St. 325; Carlisle v. Marshall, 36 Pa. St. 397. Compare People v. Coleman, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 482.

In Hardy v. Yarmouth, 6 Allen (Mass.) 277, it was held that where the trustees resided in different towns, a tax might be apportioned.

What Taxable to Trustee.-A trustee is liable to taxation only on the trust property in the state of his residence. Lewis v. Chester County, 60 Pa. St. 325. And see People v. Tax Com'rs (Supreme Ct.), 17 N. Y. Supp. 923.

Under the Pennsylvania statute imposing a tax upon property held in trust for the benefit of any "person," it was held that "person" referred to a particular individual, and that therefore property held in trust by a religious society for charitable objects was not taxable. General Assembly v. Gratz, 139 Pa. St. 497.