HODGDÔN V. BUStEÏSH. 125 �land agent had no authority to sell and eonvey the smaller number in discharge of the taxes remaining unpaid, thereby leaving over 400 acres exonerated from taxes by the sale of the property of others, in which the owners of the 400 acres are not shown to have been interested. �No law ean be found which would authorize such proceed- ings. The property -was hôld in severalty. Every lot was proportionately encumbered by the tax according to the num- ber of acres it contained, and the 15,423 acres were charge- able with the whole of the unpaid tax ; but the resuit is that the 15,026 acres have thus been made to pay the tax upon the 15,423 acres, and one man'e debt bas thus been paid com- pulsorily from another's property, and for which no redresa is provided. �The treasurer, in his notice) required of the owners the pay- ment of both state and county taxes, giving the whole amount of the unpaid taxes ($102.96) without discriminating between them ; and in his return to the land agent, af ter specifying the amouut due for each year to both state and county, he aggre- gates them at $100.94, and the land was sold for the pay- ment of this amount, with interest and cost. It was conceded the county taxes were illegal for ail but one year, the amount assessed having been in excess of that authorized by the leg- islature, and there is no evidence in support of the county tax for that year, so that none of the county taxes are shown to have been duly assessed ; but the treasurer and land agent have always recognized the county taxes as of the samevalid- ity as the state taxes, have always claimed them in their advertisements, have demanded their payment from the owners, have finally sold the property on account of their non-payment, and retained their amount from the sale of the property, and the owner could only redeem his estate by payment of the amount for which the estate was sold. �If the state undertakes to sell the property of a citizen for unpaid taxes, ail the taxes for which the sale is made must be valid and legal ; if not bo, no title is acquired by the pur- chaser. Such was the decision of the supreme court of this ����
