(b) Contents.-The warrant must comply as to form and contents with the law authorizing its issue, any substantial non-compliance with the statutory requisites invalidating the warrant and all proceedings under it.1 ́ But irregularities which do not affect the rights of the taxpayer, and accidental informalities, defects, and omissions do not necessarily render the warrant invalid.2 The warrant is usually annexed to the assessment roll or a duplicate thereof,3 and must show distinctly what taxes are to be collected and against whom they are assessed.4 The warrant to collect taxes is not a process, and need not run in the name of 1. Hilbish v. Hower, 58 Pa. St. 93; Pearce v. Torrence, 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 82; Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 495; Nashville v. Pearl, II Humph. (Tenn.) 249. And see Wing v. Hall, 47 Vt. 182; Cheshire v. Howland, 13 Gray (Mass.) 321. See Pearson v. Canney, 64 Me. 188; Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Me. 552; Machiasport v. Small, 77 Me. 109; Den v. Craig, 5 Ired. (N. Čar.) 29; Stephens v. Wilkins, 6 Pa. St. 260; May v. Wright, 17 Vt. 97; Van Wagenen v. Brown, 26 N. J. L. 196. In Picket v. Allen, 10 Conn. 146, it was held that where the tax warrant was unaccompanied by a rate bill, the collector had no authority to take the property of any individual. The system of valuation of property, by which a tax is extended, in the collector's return, and the oath or affidavit of the collector required to accompany it, are substantial requirements. People v. Otis, 74 Ill. 384. An execution issued for taxes, should specify for what taxes; otherwise it may be restrained by prohibition. State v. Graham, 2 Hill (S. Car.) 457. 2. Walker v. Miner, 32 Vt. 769; Wells v. Austin, 59 Vt. 157; Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182; Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85; King v. Whitcomb, I Met. (Mass.) 328; Bailey v. Ackerman, 54 N. H. 527; State v. Charleston, 4 Rich. (S. Car.) 286; Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 346; Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; Spear v. Braintree, 24 Vt. 414; Goodwin v. Perkins, 39 Vt. 598; Wing v. Hall, 47 Vt. 182; Picket v. Allen, 10 Conn. 146; Gove v. Newton, 58 N. H. 359; First Nat. Bank v. Waters, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 242; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28; Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 579; Mussey v. White, 3 Me. 290; Corbin v. Hill, 21 Iowa 70; American Tool Co. v. Smith, 32 Hun (N. Y.) 121. In Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590, it was held that an error in the date of the warrant, apparent upon its face, does not invalidate it. A collector has been held to be protected, where the assessment roll was not accompanied by the required affidavit of the assessors. Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 401; Boyd v. Gray, 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 322. And see Hart v. Smith, 44 Wis. 213. In Wilcox v. Gladwin, 50 Conn. 77, it was held that the form for a warrant, given in the statute, is not imperative. In Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85, it was held, where the warrant directed the collector to make the distress twelve days after demanding payment, instead of fourteen days as required by statute, that the warrant was not invalidated, if, in making the distress, the warrant was executed according to law. See also King v. Whitcomb, 1 Met. (Mass.) 328. And 3. Black on Tax Titles, § 201. see Donald v. McKinnon, 17 Fla. 746; Pearson v. Canney, 64 Me. 188; Bailey v. Ackerman, 54 Ñ. H. 527; Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 401. In Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85, it was held that a warrant to collect taxes, issued to a collector, does not authorize him to collect a tax by distress, unless it is accompanied with a tax list; but it is not necessary that the tax list should be annexed to the warrant. But see Picket v. Allen, 10 Conn. 145. Under the Vermont statutes, the warrant for the collection of a state tax need not be attached to the rate bill. Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590. But if it is annexed to the rate bill of one year, it will not justify taking property to satisfy the tax of another year. Rowell v. Horton, 57 Vt. 31. 4. Clark v. Bragdon, 37 N. H. 562; State v. Perkins, 24 N. J. L. 409. And see Machiasport v. Small, 77 Me. 109. Where a warrant directs land to be the people. Where a warrant is directed to the officer who is to execute it, as such officer, the omission of his name will not invalidate it.2 A warrant directed to the wrong officer is void,3 and neither he, nor the officer to whom it should have been directed, can execute it.4 Where lists are required to be kept separately for different classes of taxes, or for different political subdivisions, the requirement must be obeyed ; but one warrant may direct the collection of all the lists.6 The warrant must, either in terms or by implication, authorize the collector to take all the steps necessary to collection, or it is invalid and requires no action on his part." (c) Execution and Delivery. The warrant must be signed by the person, or by a majority of the body issuing it,8 in such a manner sold for a larger amount than the amount of taxes due thereon, the warrant is null and void as to the land in question. Hopper v. Malleson, 16 N. J. Eq. 382. Description. Particularity of description, sufficient to identify lands and ascertain their locations, is required in the duplicate, warrant, and notices of sale, only when the lien upon land for taxes given by statutes is intended to be enforced. State v. Hawkens, 50 N. J. L. 122; Pfeiffer v. Miles, 48 N. J. L. 450. And see Dickson v. Rouse, 80 Mo. 224. 1. Scarritt v. Chapman, 11 Ill. 443; Curry v. Hinman, i1 Ill. 420; Haley v. Elliott, 16 Colo. 159; Mussey v. White, 3 Me. 290; Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 579; Wisner v. Davenport, 5 Mich. 501; Sprague v. Birchard, I Wis. 457. Compare Nashville v. Pearl, II Humph. (Tenn.) 249. 2. Wilson v. Seavey, 38 Vt. 221; Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; Byars v. Curry, 75 Ga. 515. And see Picket v. Allen, 1o Conn. 146; First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph Tp., 46 Mich. 526; Bedgood v. McLain, 89 Ga. 793; Hays v. Drake, 6 Gray (Mass.) 387. But see Butler v. Nevin, 88 Ill. 575. In Keith v. Freeman, 43 Ark. 296, it was held that a tax warrant addressed to the sheriff is not invalid, where the sheriff and collector are the same person. 3. Stephens v. Wilkins, 6 Pa. St. 260; Dinsmore v. Westcott, 25 N. J. Eq. 470. And see Butler v. Nevin, 88 III. 575. Compare Chandler v. Spear, 22 Vt. 388; Wilson v. Seavey, 38 Vt. 221. 4. Cannell v. Crawford County, 59. Pa. St. 196. Compare Scarry v. Lewis, 133 Ind. 96, as to the validity of the tax, when the tax duplicate was not delivered to the county auditor. 5. Thayer v. Stearns, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 482; People v. Moore, 1 Idaho 662; Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12. And see Brown v. Powell, 85 Ga. 603. But see Thatcher v. People, 79 Ill. 597. In Wall v. Trumbull, 16 Mich. 228, it was held that where a tax is placed in a separate column on the tax roll, when it is not required by law to be so placed, the rights of no one can be prejudiced thereby, and no one is entitled to complain. See also Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587. 6. Thayer v. Stearns, I Pick. (Mass.) 482. A warrant authorizing a collector to collect several taxes, separately assessed, may be regarded as several warrants to collect the several taxes. Brackett v. Whidden, 3 N. H. 19. 7. Bachelder v. Thompson, 41 Me. 539; State v. Atkinson, 107 N. Car. 317; Frankfort v. White, 41 Me. 537; Pearson v. Canney, 64 Me. 188; Boothbay v. Giles, 68 Me. 161; Boothbay v. Giles, 64 Me. 403; Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Me. 552; Tremont School Dist. v. Clark, 33 Me. 482; Waldron v. Lee, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 328. In Orneville v. Pearson, 61 Me. 552, it was held that a collector of taxes, acting under a warrant, is exonerated from completing the service, if the warrant direct and exempt from distress of property not exempted by statute. It is not necessary that a tax warrant should specifically direct the sales of real estate, in terms. Westhampton v. Searle, 127 Mass. 502; King v. Whitcomb, 1 Met. (Mass.) 328. 8. Belfast Sav. Bank v. Kennebec as to show the intention to give it official sanction; but it is immaterial whether the signatures appear at the beginning or the end.2 Provisions in relation to the signature, as for instance, that both list and warrant shall be signed, are mandatory; but provisions as to the time of delivery are directory. The delivery of the warrant, however, must be made in time to allow the collector time for compulsory enforcement of the tax by action.4 3. Method of Collection-a. GENERALLY.-The government is entitled to all the remedies for the collection of taxes, to which Land, etc., Co., 73 Me. 404; Pearson v. Canney, 64 Me. 188; Goddard v. Seymour, 30 Conn. 394; Sprague v. Bailey, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 436. And see Smith v. Messer, 17 N. H. 420. In Bellows v. Weeks, 41 Vt. 590, it was held that, in the absence of statutory provision, one selectman may properly perform the mechanical act of writing the names of the other members of the board, to a certificate of assessment, he being authorized by them so to do. 1. Belfast Sav. Bank v. Kennebec Land, etc., Co., 73 Me. 404. In Sheldon v. Van Buskirk, 2 N. Y. 473, it was held that a warrant issued by supervisors of a county for the collection of taxes, is valid, even though the persons describing it are not described therein as supervisors, or by any other official designation. Presumption of Due Signature.—It will be presumed that the tax list and warrant were duly signed by the assessors, in absence of proof to the contrary. Kellar v. Savage, 20 Me. 199. 2. Belfast Sav. Bank v. Kennebec Land, etc., Co., 73 Me. 404; Hogelskamp . Weeks, 37 Mich. 422. A warrant does not, like a deed, import a sealed instrument. Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 495. Where the law requires the comptroller's signature to be affixed" to a collector's warrant, the word "counter-signed" at the left of his name, does not vitiate his signature. Scammon v. Chicago, 42 Ill. 192. In Hogelskamp v. Weeks, 37 Mich. 422, it was held that a highway tax is not void simply because the commissioner of highways did not sign the highway list, when he did sign the warrant for collection which was attached to the list. And in Kane v. Brooklyn, 114 N. Y. 586, the same rule was applied to the signature of the board of supervis ors upon the city tax rolls of Brooklyn. See also Doolittle v. Doolittle, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 313. Under the New Hampshire statute, the list of taxes committed to the collector, must be signed by the collector. Gordon v. Rundlett, 28 N. H. 435. 3. Belfast Sav. Bank v. Kennebec Land, etc., Co., 73 Me. 404; Colby v. Russell, 3 Me. 227; Foxcroft v. Nevens, 4 Me. 72; Johnson v. Goodridge, 15 Me. 29; Bangor v. Lancey, 21 Me. 472; Pearson v. Canney, 64 Me. 188; Chase v. Sparhawk, 22 N. H. 134; Copp v. Whipple, 41 N. H. 273. And see Den v. Craig, 5 Ired. (N. Car.) 129. It is not sufficient that the list is specially referred to in the warrant to the collector, accompanying it. Copp v. Whipple, 41 N. H. 273. In Chase v. Sparhawk, 22 N. H. 134, it was held that selectmen issuing a warrant without authenticating the accompanying list of taxes, are answerable, in an action of trespass, for the act of the collector in the seizure of property for the enforcement of the collection of taxes, in pursuance of the direction contained in the warrant. 4. Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 401; People v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 486; Sheldon v. Van Buskirk, 2 N. Y. 473; Oswego County v. Betts, 6 N. Y. Supp. 934; 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638; Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 418; Hubbard v. Winsor, 15 Mich. 146; Smith 7. Crittenden, 16 Mich. 152; Weeks v. Batchelder, 41 Vt. 317; Cardigan v. Page, 6 N. H. 182; Cooley on Taxation (2d ed.), p. 428. A tax sale is not invalid because the tax collector's certificate was not dated, or because the auditor's certificate did not show when it was received in his office. Corburn v. Crittenden, 62 Miss. 125. See also Mills v. Scott, 62 Miss. 525; Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Ligon, 62 Miss. 560. it may choose to resort.1 The state may provide that taxes shall be enforced, to the exclusion of other claims against the person or property. The method employed to enforce the collection may be changed at any time before the taxes are discharged or paid,3 for example, the state may adopt more stringent measures 4 but the law as it was before the change will govern pending proceedings, unless it is otherwise provided.5 The statutory remedy is exclusive, unless other remedies are expressly authorized. 1. See Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 30; York v. Goodwin, 67 Me. 260; Packard v. Tisdale, 50 Me. 376; State v. Duncan, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 679; Jonesboro v. McKee, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 167; Rutledge v. Fogg, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 568; 91 Am. Dec. 299; Marr v. Bank of Tennessee, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 471. 2. A state is not bound to wait until the estate of a deceased person or insolvent has been distributed, but may enforce the payment of taxes, to the exclusion of other creditors. Dunlap 7. Gallatin County, 15 Ill. 7. And see Bulfinch v. Benner, 64 Me. 404; Huiscamp . Albert, 60 Iowa 421; In re Columbian Ins. Co., 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 239; Harvey v. South Chester, 99 Pa. St. 565. 3. Aplin v. Reynolds, 83 Mich. 471; In re Elizabeth, 49 N. J. L. 488; Hosmer v. People, 96 Ill. 58; Edwards v. Williamson, 70 Ala. 145. The legislature has power to pass an act to remedy defects in a law authorizing a tax, while the tax remains uncollected. Cowgill v. Long, 15 Ill. 203. 4. In re Elizabeth, 49 N. J. L. 488. And see State v. Heman, 70 Mo. 441. Knowledge of Taxpayer.-Every taxpayer is assumed to know the usual course taken to enforce payment of delinquent taxes. Louden v. East Saginaw, 41 Mich. 18. 5. Karnes v. People, 73 Ill. 274; State v. Waterville Sav. Bank, 68 Me. 519; Oakland v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303; State v. Tufts, 108 Mo. 418; Fitch v. Elko County, 8 Nev. 271. And see Bellows v. Parsons, 13 N. H. 256; State v. Sloss, 83 Ala. 93; People v. Moore, 1 Idaho 662; State v. Shepherd, 74 Mo. 310; Smith v. Kelly (Oregon, 1893), 33 Pac. Rep. 642; Pacific, etc., Tel. Co. v. Com., 66 Pa. St. 70; People v. Latham, 53 Cal. 386; New Orleans v. Day, 29 La. Ann. 416; New Orleans v. Rheinish Westphalian Lloyds, 31 La. Ann. 784. But see Spokane County v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 5 Wash. 89; Brigins v. Chandler, 60 Miss. 862; Bryan v. Harvey, 11 Tex. 311. The repeal of a statute under which taxes are levied, however, puts an end to the right to collect them, unless the intent to preserve the right to collect appears. Gorley v. Sewell, 77 Ind. 317; Mount v. State, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 25; Bleidorn v. Abel, 6 Iowa 5; State v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106. Additional Taxes.-When the duty to collect taxes, in addition to the ordinary ones, is imposed upon a collector, he should proceed in the same manneś as for the collection of other taxes Cunningham v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. St. 78. New Remedies.-In Briggins v. People, 106 Ill. 270, it was held that a new remedy given to enforce a tax lien by foreclosure in equity, applies to preexisting rights, as well as to those subsequently accruing. Not Applicable to Municipal Assessments. In Harvey v. South Chester,99 Pa. St. 565, it was held that an act applying a new method for the collection of taxes in a certain county, has special reference to taxes, properly speaking, and does not apply to municipal claims or assessments which are made iiens entitled to priority of payment by statute. Constitutional Charges.-In New Orleans v. Wood, 34 La. Ann. 732, it was held that a constitutional provision with reference to the method of collecting taxes, is not self-operative, and the former mode of collecting remains in force until otherwise abrogated. Saloy v. Woods, 40 La. Ann. 585. 6. See Raynsford v. Phelps, 43 Mich. 342; Johnston v. Louisville, 11 Bush (Ky.) 527; People v. Lee, 112 Ill. 113; Biggins v. People, 96 Ill. 381; Hibbard v. Clark, 56 N. H. 158; 22 Am. Rep. 442; Pole v. Muscatine, 17 Iowa 298; Packard v. Tisdale, 50 Me. 376; Macy v. Nantucket, 121 Mass. 351; Andover, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Gould, 6 Mass. 43; 4 Am. Dec. 80; Crapo v. Stetson, 8 Met. (Mass.) 393; Alexander v. Helber, b. SUMMARY PROCESSES--(1) Nature and Constitutionality.The term "summary processes " is applied to those informal proceedings for the collection of taxes which are of a speedy and peremptory nature, differing from the ordinary and regular proceedings of courts of justice. Such proceedings are not necessarily unconstitutional.2 (2) Construction.--Statutes authorizing summary processes for the collection of taxes, are to be strictly construed, as they are in derogation of the common law. They cannot be extended 35 Mo. 334; Caronchlet v. Picot, 38 Mo. 125; Faribault v. Misener, 20 Minn. 396; Montour v. Purdy, 11 Minn. 384; American Glucose Co. v. State, 43 N. J. Eq. 280; Camden v. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 399; Board of Education v. Old Dominion, etc., Co., 18 W. Va. 441. But see infra, this title, Collection by Action. This rule does not apply where the remedy given is inadequate. Johnston v. Louisville, 11 Bush (Ky.) 527; McLean v. Myers, 134 N. Y. 480. And see Ryan v. Gallatin County, 14 Ill. 78; Central Trust Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 109 N. Y. 250. The rule has been laid down, however, that when the statutory remedy is defective, the courts cannot provide one. See Biggins v. People, 96 Ill. 381; Thompson v. Allen County, 13 Fed. Rep. 97. In Byrne v. La Salle, 123 Ill. 581, it was held that where forfeited lands are sold for delinquent taxes, an action afterwards brought to recover a personal judgment against the owner may be barred; but such a proceeding will not in any way impair the validity of a personal judgment already rendered. In State v. Georgia Co., 112 N. Car. 34, it was held that the existence of a special remedy for the collection of state and county taxes, restricts the revenue officers only, and not the state itself, which may pursue other methods than those provided for by statute. In State v. Georgia Co., 112 N. Car. 34, it was held that the right of a state to forfeit the charter of a domestic corporation, for failure to pay taxes, does not bar its right to bring a creditor's suit for such taxes. 1. See Taylor v. Secor (State Railroad Tax Cases), 92 U. S. 575; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 41; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701; Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 108; New Orleans v. Cannon, 10 La. Ann. 764. 2. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 260; State v. Sargeant, 76 Mo. 557; Hayden v. Foster, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 494; Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283; Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Miss. 1038; McCarroll v. Weeks, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 246; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78; Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722; Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 586. It is competent for the legislature to authorize the use of different summary processes for the collection of the sum taxed, see Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587; or it may provide for its enforcement, either by action or by summary process, at the option of the officers whose duty it is to effect its collection. York v. Goodwin, 67 Me. 260. Due Process of Law. They do not infringe the provision that property shall not be taken without due process of law. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. (U.S.) 19; Den v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 18 How. (U. S.) 272; U. S. v. Ferriera, 13 How. (U. S.) 40; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37; Springer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 586; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curt. (U. S.) 311; Pritchard v. Marden, 24 Kan. 486; Weimer v. Bunbury, 30 Mich. 201; Neenan v. Smith, 50 Mo. 525; Taylor v. Porter, Hill (N. Y.) 146; 40 Am. Dec. 274; Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 59; 30 Am. Dec. 430; Vanzant v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 260; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 260. The constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law, does not require that taxes shall be collected by an action in court, or under the forms of legal procedure. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 260. But the taxpayer must have an opportunity to comply with the requirements of the law, and the state, not he, must be the actor. Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Miss. 1038. |