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 . 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 7. Oconto County, 47 Wis. 216; Lee 7. 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 7. 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 7. 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 7. Columbia County, 32 Ark. 270; Danley . Pike, 15 Árk. 141; Loftin v. Watson, 32 Ark. 415; Fuller v. State, 73 Ga. 40S; 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 re-. quired 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 7. 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 . Albright, 20 Pa. St. 157. And see Ambler 7. Clayton, 23 Iowa 173.

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

Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374; 21 Am. Rep. 490; Hall v. Hall, I Mass. 101; Seigneuret v. Fahey, 27 Minn. 60; Huber v. Pickler, 94 Mo. 382; Deen 7. Wills, 21 Tex. 642.

A collector's receipt for taxes is an official paper which the law requires him to give, and is evidence of the payment of the tax in suits between third persons. Johnstone v. Scott, II Mich. 232. And see Weimer v. Porter, 42 Mich. 569; Miller v. Hurford, 13 Neb. 13. But it will not sustain a claim of ownership where it is shown that the taxes were paid under a contract with the real owner. Ellen v. Ellen, 16 S. Car. 132.

The receipt of a deputy collector is held to have the same force and effect as that of the treasurer. Jones v. Welsing, 52 Iowa 220; McReynolds v. Longenberger, 57 Pa. St. 13; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374; 4 Am. Rep. 490. But though original evidence, they are not conclusive, and may be rebutted or explained by parol. Elston v. Kennicott, 46 Ill. 188; Rand v. Scofield, 43 Ill. 167; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374; 4 Am. Rep. 490; Wolf v. Philadelphia, 105 Pa. St. 25. And until invalidated by proof, are sufficient. Johnstone v. Scott, II Mich. 232.

Where tax receipts inaccurately describing the property are offered in evidence as proof of payment, it is a question for the jury, whether they were intended to cover the property in dispute, Orton v. Noonan, 25 Wis. 672.

1. Adams v. Beale, 19 Iowa 61; Dennett v. Crocker, 8 Me. 239; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374; 4 Am. Rep. 490; McReynolds v. Longenberger, 57 Pa. St. 13.

The payment of a tax is matter in pais, and may be proven by oral evidence. Davis v. Hare, 32 Ark. 386; Adams v. Beale, 19 Iowa 61; McDonough v. Jefferson County, 79 Tex. 535.

The action of the collecting officer in reference to the payment, receipt, and return for taxes, is a part of the res gestæ upon which the validity of a tax deed depends. Johnstone v. Scott, 11 Mich.232. And where land is erroneously assessed twice in different names, the collector who returns it as delinquent is a competent witness to prove

the payment of the taxes by the owner of the land. Davis v. Hare, 32 Ark. 386.

Under a Mississippi statute providing that none but a certain form of receipt shall be valid as evidence, payment of taxes before a sale cannot be shown to invalidate a tax title, unless the prescribed receipt was given; but it does not prevent proof of the loss of a valid receipt. Edmondson v. Ingram, 68 Miss. 32.

As between the parties, payment cannot be shown in opposition to a judicial determination that the taxes are delinquent. Gaylord v. Scarff, 6 Iowa 179; Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118; 76 Am. Dec. 421; Cadmus v. Jackson, 52 Pa. St. 295.

Certificate of Payment.-A certificate by a tax collector of a county where the land is situate, that no taxes are charged against such land on his books, is not sufficient evidence of payment of taxes. Acklin v. Paschal, 48 Tex. 147.

Previous Payment of Taxes. - Evidence of the payment of taxes for previous years is not admissible to establish payment for a subsequent year. Ankeny v. Albright, 20 Pa. St. 157. Nor is the fact that the tax had been marked reduced on the tax books. State v. School Com'rs, etc., 13 Wis.409.

Presumption of Payment.-In Smith v. Tharp, 17 W. Va. 221, it is held that the mere lapse of time will not raise a legal presumption of the payment of taxes on lands returned delinquent, though taken in connection with other circumstances it might justify a jury in finding as a matter of fact that taxes have been paid. But see Woodburn v. Farmers, etc., Bank, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 447; McLaughlin v. Kain, 45 Pa. St. 113. And Brown v. Day, 78 Pa. St. 129, where payment was presumed from the lapse of time.

No presumption of payment arises from the duty of the taxpayer to make it. Any such presumption would be overthrown by the counter presumption that the tax officers have not violated their duty by proceeding to enforce the collection of taxes after they have been paid. Ankeny v. Albright, 20 Pa. St. 157.

2. See RECEIPTS, vol. 19, p. IIII.

3. Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 326; Huber v. Pickler, 94 Mo. 382;

Alexander v. Hunter, 29 Neb. 259; Wallace's Estate, 59 Pa. St. 401; Montgomery v. Meredith, 17 Pa. St. 42; Reading v. Finney, 73 Pa. St. 467; Hunter v. Cochran, 3 Pa. St. 105; Johnson v. Christie, 64 Ga. 117. Payment extinguishes the tax. Morrison v. Kelly, 22 Ill. 610.

Land Twice Assessed.-The fact that the land has been twice assessed to different persons and the payment has been made by only one of them, does not alter the rule. Alexander v. Hunter, 29 Neb. 259; Bradley v. Ewart, 18 W. Va. 598; Montgomery v. Meredith, 17 Pa. St. 42.

1. Morris v. Sioux County, 42 Iowa 416; Iowa R. Land Co. v. Guthrie, 53 Iowa 383; Gaylord v. Scarff, 6 Iowa 179; Wallace v. Brown, 22 Ark. 118; 76 Am. Dec. 421; Davis v. Hare, 32 Ark. 386; Conant v. Buesing, 23 Fla. 559; Blight v. Banks, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 192; 17 Am. Dec. 136; Morrison v. Kelly, 22 Ill. 610; Mason v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 420; Curry v. Hinman, 11 Ïll. 420; Wall. District of Columbia, 6 Mackey (D. C.) 194; Griffing v. Pintard, 25 Miss. 173; Montgomery v. Meredith, 17 Pa. St. 42; Ankeny v. Albright, 20 Pa. St. 157; Hunter v. Cochran, 3 Pa. St. 105; Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 326; Wilbert v. Michel, 42 La. Ann. 853. And see Doty v. Bassitt, 44 Kan. 454; Jackson v. Morse, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 441; 9 Am. Dec. 225; Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 328; 49 Am. Dec. 189; Joslyn v. Rockwell, 128 N. Y. 334; Den v. Terrell, 3 Hawks (N. Car.) 283; Hilliard v. Grif fin, 72 Iowa 331; Lefebre v. Negrotto 44 La. Ann. 792; Patton v. Long, 68 Pa. St. 260.

To authorize a tax collector to sell land by reason of the non-payment of taxes in any case, the taxpayer must be in default. Doe v. Burford, 26 Miss. 194; Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; Williams v. Camnack, 27 Miss. 209; 61 Am. Dec. 508.

Even though a payment is the result of a mistake, a collector has no power to cancel it and revive the assessment. Mason v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 420; Richmond v. Brown, 66 Me. 373. Though where money received in payment of a tax is applied to the payment of another tax through the mistake of

a collector, the error may be corrected. Mason v. Chicago, 48 III. 420.

A tax paid on unseated land is applied to the tract for which it is paid, without reference to any mistake of the owner, though the land on which the payment was intended is afterwards sold for taxes. Stephens. Wells, 6 Watts (Pa.) 325. And see Maxwell v. Hunter, 65 Iowa 121. But the payment of taxes assessed upon parts of lots described as the whole should have been described, must be treated as a payment of the whole tax where the owner in good faith so intended it. Merton v. Ďolphin, 28 Wis. 456.

2. Walton . Gray, 29 Iowa 440; Rowland v. Doty, Harr. (Mich.) 3; Rayner v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384; Sigman Pickler, 94 Mo. 382; Kinsworthy v. v. Lundy, 66 Miss. 522; Huber v. Austin, 23 Ark. 375; Laird v. Hiester, 24 Pa. St. 452; Dougherty v. Dickey, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 146; Breisch v. Coxe, St. 129; Reading v. 81 Pa. St. 336; Brown v. Day, 78 Pa. Finney, 73 Pa. St. 467: Cadmus v. Jackson, 52 Pa. St. 295; Schenk v. Peay, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 267; Tracey v. Irwin, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 549; Atwood v. Weems, 99 U. S. 183; Matthews v. Buckingham, 22 Kan. 166; Martin v. Snowden, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 100; Jones v. Dils, 18 W. Va. 759; Randall v. Dailey, 66 Wis. 285; Sprague v. Coenen, 30 Wis. to wild lands. Rish v. Ivey, 76 Ga. 738. The rule applies

209.

A tax sale of land as unseated will

transfer no title to the vendee, when the land sold constitutes a part of a seated paid. Kramer v. Goodlander, 98 Pa. tract upon which the taxes have been St. 366.

In Sprague v. Coenen, 30 Wis. 209, it was held that where lands were sold for taxes which had previously been paid, the Statute of Limitations as to

tax deeds did not run in favor of the grantee.

When a taxpayer has paid before sale, he is not required to make a tender to the purchaser before bringing suit to set aside the sale. Lefebre v. Negrotto, 44 La. Ann. 792.

But if the owner voluntarily redeems lands sold for taxes after they have been paid, he cannot recover from the county the amount paid for such redemption. Morris v. Sioux County, 42 Iowa 416.

The rule is the same whether the sale is made through the inadvertence or mistake of the parties concerned, or in positive disregard of the fact of payment. Myrick v. Montgomery County, 33 Ind. 333; Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505; Stephens v. Wells, 6 Watts (Pa.) 325.

Tender of Taxes.-A sale of lands for taxes after tender of payment by the owner, though it is assessed in the name of another person, does not divest him of his title. Kinsworthy v. Austin, 23 Ark. 375.

Where a taxpayer tenders the amount of taxes due from him to the collector, which he refuses because the collection of the taxes for that year has been enjoined in a suit to which the taxpayer is not a party, and the injunction is dissolved, it is necessary, before the taxpayer can be placed in default for nonpayment, that a demand be again made. Doe v. Burford, 26 Miss. 194.

Tender Suspends Interest.-The tender of the tax suspends the running of interest. Iowa R. Land Co. v. Carroll County, 39 Iowa 151.

1. Dougherty v. Dickey, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 146; Montgomery v. Meredith, 17 Pa. St. 47; Henderson v. Robinson, 76 Iowa 603; Huber v. Pickler, 94 Mo. 382; Jones v. Dils, 18 W. Va. 759.

Thus, a payment is not defeated by its application to the taxes of other persons. Henderson v. Robinson, 76 Iowa 603; Maxwell v. Hunter, 65 Iowa 121; Lefebre v. Negrotto, 44 La. Ann. 792. Or to the payment of taxes on other property than that designated by the taxpayer. Dougherty v. Dickey, 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 146; Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505.

Where a tax payment is expressly made to satisfy a particular assessment, the collector, if he receives it, must apply the money to the purpose specified, and no other. Fuller v. Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395.

Taxpayers are authorized to rely upon the officer to whom payment is made for the proper application of the money given them, and justice will not permit them to lose their lands through the mistake of officers in whom they are authorized to confide. Henderson v. Robinson, 76 Iowa 603. And see Corning Town Co. v. Davis, 44 Iowa 622; Corbin v. Stewart, 44 Iowa 543; Fenton v. Way, 40 Iowa 196.

Where the owner of unseated land pays the amount demanded of him by the treasurer, but the payment is credited to another tract and his land is sold for non-payment, the sale is void. Laird v. Hiester, 24 Pa. St. 452.

2. Morrison v. Larkin, 26 La. Ann. 701; Slack v. Ray, 26 La. Ann. 675; Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283; State v. Consolidated Va. Min. Co., 16 Nev. 432; Languille v. State, 4 Tex. App. 312; Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 605. And see Vandine, Petitioner, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 187; Nightingale, Petitioner, II Pick. (Mass.) 168; Biscoe v. Couller, 18 Ark. 423; Brooklyn v. Cleeves, 1 Hill & D. Supp. (N. Y.) 231; Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 99; Bervear v. Com., 5 Wall. (U. S.) 475.

3. Green v. Gruber, 26 La. Ann. 694; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 406; 20 Am. Rep. 654; Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 130. And see Chalker v. Ives, 55 Pa. St. 81.

Constitutional provisions, providing a method for the collection of municipal taxes, are not self-operative, and laws on the subject previously in force, continue in operation, until they are otherwise abrogated. New Orleans v. Wood, 34 La. Ann. 732.

4. See Mason v. Rollins, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 99; Edwards v. Williamson, 70 Ala. 145; Litchfield v Vernon, 41 N. Y. 130; Appeal Tax Ct. v. Union R. Co., 50 Md. 275; Languille v. State, 4 Tex. App. 312. And see supra, this title, The Power to Tax.