m'wILLIAMS V. WITHINGTON. 327 �The petitioner avers that he has been unable to obtain possession " by reason of the fact that said Withington had no title or interest therein or thereto, and the same was not subject to sale as the property of said Withington." �The interest which a person has under a time purchase from the state, while the contract remains in force, is, in my judgment, property subject to sale upon execution. It is such an interest as the supreme court of Nevada describe in Borne» y. Sabron, 10 Nev. 240, as follows: �" To this land he (piaintifl) has the beneficiai estate or interest, as weli as the possession, and as such equitable owner and actual possessor is entitled to enjoy allthe incidents to the land (a water right) anditsowner- ship, as ■well as the land itself." �And in Page v. Rogers, 31 Cal. 306, it was held that, both before and after the time for redemption had expired, the pur- chaser at an execution sale had an equitable estate which could be seized and sold on execution. Lands in the new states have always been held to be taxable by the state before they are patented, if they have been purchased from the United States. �"And, indeed," says Mr. Justice McLean, in delivering the opinion of the supreme court in Car roi v. Safford, "in Ohio, under the credit System, lands were taxed after the expiration of five years from the time of their purchase, although they had not been paid for in full." 3 How. 459. 8ee, also, Feople v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 648, and cases cited ; Witherspoon v. Dun- ean, 4 Wall. 219 ; Hughes v. U. S. 4 Wall. 232 ; U. M. a Manufg Co. v. Langberg, 2 Sawy. 455. �At the date of this sale by the marshal Withington had entered into a contract with the state of Nevada for the pur- chase of this land. The priee was agreed upon, and he had paid a portion of the purchase money, and was to pay the rest in annual instalments, and to have a deed upon making the last payment. He had the actual possession, and was in receipt of every benefit which would have corne to him from full ownership. That he had a valuable interest in the land it needs no argument to prove. He or his successor in inter- est was the only man in the world, so long as he kept the contract in force, who had a right to make the payments and preserve his interest. To the extent of his payments already made he had a peeuniary interest, which would increase each ��� �
