COEBIN ». COMMISSIONKRS OP WASHINGTON CO. 361 �the rate of 10 per cent, per annum;" and, in cases of the latter kind, that "the county commissioners shall cause the money paid therefor on the sale, and ail subsequent taxes and charges paid thereon by the purchaser or liis assigns, to be refuaded, with interest on the whole amount at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum," etc. �These provisions are found in the revenue law of the state. Their purpose is manifest. The state is largely interested in the prompt collection of its revenue. Where the owner of property fails to pay the taxes due thereon, it becomes a mat- ter of interest to the state to induce others to corne forward and make the payment, taking a lien upon the property, which, in default of redemption, may ripen into a title. But tax titles are very uncertain, and investments in them are often precarious, because of errors and irregularities which may not be known to the purchaser, and which may vitiate the sale. In order, therefore, to induce capitalists to come forward and invest their means in such manner as to replen- ish the treasury, the state of Kansas, by the acts of 1868 and 1876, said to ail such, "If you will bid at tax sales and pay your money, the amount invested, with interest, shall be re- funded from the county treasury, in case the sale is after- wards discovered to be irregular or void." This legislation did not of itself amount to a contract, but I think it àid amount to a proposition on the part of the state, which, when accepted and acted upon, became a contract binding upon the state, as well as upon the other party. In the present case, the proposition embodied in the statute was accepted by the plaintiff. Upon the faith of it he invested his money. �I know of no element of contract that is wanting. There was a stipulation, by the agreement of minds, upon a sufScient consideration, that the plaintifï, having bid off the lands at tax sale, and paid his money therefor, should be entitled to receive his money and interest from the county treasury, if^ by reason of irregularity or invalidity, the sale could not b& consummated. Fairington v. Tenu, 95 U.S. 679. �I am of the opinion, therefore, that the àcts of 1868 and 1876, and what was done under them, amounted to a contracta ����
