was the usage in the town to divide it into districts, and each assessor to act independently of the others in making the assessment. Such an assessment is the act of one assessor, and not of all or a majority.1 Their duties cannot be performed by deputy."

Assessors are generally required to take an oath, and sometimes to give bond, or do other acts, before entering upon the performance of their duties. A failure to comply with these requirements, does not invalidate the acts of the officer, when they are called in question in any collateral proceeding. The right of the officer to enter upon his duties depends upon his election or appointment, not upon a compliance with the statutory provisions. He is an officer de facto, and as to the public and third persons his acts are valid, and a party. prosecuted for penalties incurred under the revenue laws, cannot avail himself of irregularities in the qualification of the assessor to protect himself. There are cases which seem to be in conflict with this view, such as Pike v. Hanson," but that case was an action of trespass brought against the selectmen or assessors, for seizing property to pay taxes illegally assessed, in which the question at issue was whether the parties sued were assessors. In such an action, the officer must show that he is an officer de jure. The question does not arise collaterally. It is true that where the sheriff is required to file an oath as assessor, prior to a day fixed by statute, and on his failure to do this, the statute declares his office vacant, an assessment made by him under such circumstances, was thought to be void, yet even that has been thought doubtful by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, who regard him as an officer de facto."

In California, the Constitution requires assessors and collectors of town, county and State taxes, to be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county or town in which the property taxed is situated. The duties of the assessor in that State cannot be delegated to any person or to any board; they are to be performed by the persons designated in the Constitution. Nor can the legislature by law fix the assessed value of property by reference to an assessment of a previous year; this would violate this constitutional provision. So in North Carolina, where the power is vested by the Constitution in

1 Middleton v. Berlin, 18 Conn. 189; Granger v. Parsons, 2 Pick. 392.

2 Stokes v. The State, 24 Miss. 621.

5 Pike v. Hanson, 9 N. H. 491. For further discussion see § 106 post.

trustees of townships, to value tangible property, it cannot be delegated to a board composed of the governor and other officers.1

$95. The Roll or List.-The assessment is usually and almost universally made a matter of record. This record is called the roll or list. This roll contains the names of the persons taxed, the amount of the poll-tax, a description of the personal property owned by each person, the value of it, and the amount of the tax, a description of the land owned by each person, the number of acres, the situation, and the value, with amount of tax, and the total amount of tax assessed upon each person for all the property listed. In many of the States the roll enters minutely into detail, giving the various classes of personal property, as household furniture, money, bonds, stocks, &c., and as to real estate, giving the value of land and buildings in separate columns. This roll when completed is signed by the assessors, and usually filed in the office of the clerk of the county or city. The license and probate taxes are not placed on the roll; they are paid to some officer as a condition precedent to the issuing of the license, or the probate of the will, or the granting of letters of administration. And so with the taxes on deeds or suits; they are paid to the clerk or register before the deeds are admitted to record, or the process is issued. In such cases the assessment and payment of the tax are concurrent acts.

So in the cases of corporations, the legislature often compounds with them for a specific tax regulated by their receipts, or in some other mode, in lieu of all other taxes, and they are required to make reports at stated periods to some State officer, as the auditor or comptroller, and make payment of the tax in accordance with the reports. Here, too, the assessment and collection of the tax are concurrent acts, and the taxes do not appear on the roll.

Generally the owner of property is required to deliver to the assessor a list containing a description of all his taxable property, and from this the assessment is made; but the assessor is not concluded by this statement of the owner as to the property included, if he has reason to believe the list is not a true one; and in such case, or where the owner omits or refuses to deliver the list, he may proceed upon the best information he can obtain to make a correct assessment, adding property omitted by the owner.

Nor when the statute enume

1 Richmond & Dan. R. R. Co. v. Brogden, 74 N. C. 707; affi'g 72 N. C. 10.

2 State v. Perkins, 4 Zabr. 409.

Hall v. County, 10 Allen, 100; Thompson v. Tinkum, 15 Minn. 295.

Lott v. Hubbard, 44 Ala. 593; State v. Louisiana, 19 La. Ann. 474; Donnell v. Webster, 63 Maine, 15.

rates certain sources of information for his guidance in ascertaining who is to be taxed for certain property and its value, is he bound by them. These are only to aid him in doing that which is essential to ascertain the names of the persons taxable, and the value of taxable property. The examination of the party on oath, and the other sources of information are merely directory requirements, and not mandatory. In like manner the statement as to value in the list returned by the owner is not conclusive on the assessor. The estimate of the value is a judicial act. The assessors are chosen specially to perform this duty, and their decision is based upon all the information they possess, whether derived from the owner or otherwise. The failure of the assessor to demand a statement of taxable property from the tax-payer, or in case of unimproved lands, to go upon and make an actual examination of them, will not make the assessment invalid, as these things are not essential. The roll or list containing the valuation of taxable property is necessary to the validity of the assessment, and it is required to be filed, either the original or a copy of it, in some public office, as that of town clerk, open to the inspection of the public.*

Description of Personal Estate.-In describing personal estate taxed, it is not essential that every item of property as designated in in the statute should be stated, but some degree of certainty is required; for instance, where wheat was listed as "household goods, &c., valued at $24,000," the assessment was held not valid. The listing includes a description, which must show more or less distinctly, according to its character, to what property the valuation relates." Where mortgages are not taxed eo nomine, a description "personal property, mortgages, $100.00," does not sufficiently designate the character of the property taxed. So, where by statute improvements on real estate are to be assessed as personalty, when owned by a person other than the owner of the real estate on which they are erected, the assessment must separately value and set down in separate columns the values of the different parcels and descriptions of property; e. g., in mining improvements, the ditch and flume must not be valued with the mills, nor with mining implements, cars, tools, and supplies, which are mentioned in the statute as personal property; the de

1 State v Tindall, 36 N. J. Law, 97.

* Inhabitants of Newburyport v. Co. Com'rs, 12 Metc. 211.

3 State v. Weston, 4 Nev. 338; Dewey v. Stratford, 42 N. H. 282.

4 Thurston v. Little, 3 Mass. 429; Thayer v. Stearns, 1 Pick. 482.

5 Thompson v. Davison, 15 Minn. 412.

6 Faulkner v. Hunt, 16 Cal. 167.

scriptions and values of these separate parcels must be in separate

columns.1

Description of Land.-As a general rule the tax on land is a personal charge against the owner. In the statutes of all the States there is something to indicate this, and almost universally the collector is required to make the tax out of the goods and chattels of the person assessed with the tax. The name of the owner of the land, or of the occupant where the statute directs it to be assessed to the occupant, is an essential ingredient in the description of the land. If no name is set opposite the land the assessment is void. The name of the owner must be that of the owner at the time at which by the law of the State the assessment of the land is to take effect. The assessment to one not the owner of land, which belongs to parties in possession under recorded deeds, is a fraud, and vitiates the assessment. So where the owner is in possession of a city lot, and a part of it is assessed to him, and the remainder to "unknown owners," the latter assessment is void. The assessment of land to one who was not, nor ever had been, the owner, is void. Where the statute requires land to be assessed in the name of its owner, if known, if not to be assessed to "unknown owner," an assessment in name of Schmidt, leaving out the Christian name, is not valid ; nor is an assessment in the name of S. M. Whipple good when the true name is Stephen B. Whipple, but an assessment of land to a person in a name by which he is habitually known, although it is not his true name, is good. In the last case the true name was William H. Van Voorhis, but the name on the roll was Henry D. Van Voorhis. He was generally known by the latter name, and there was no other person in the town of that name. The use of the name Packard, instead of Packer, is not a material variation.10

The statutes sometimes require, in express words, the land to be assessed to the owner if a resident, and if not then to the occupant. The provisions of the law must be complied with in order to give jurisdiction to the assessors. An assessment to one neither owner nor

127.

1

People v. Sierra Buttes Mining Co. 39 Cal. 511; but see People v. Rains, 23 Cal.

2 Green v. Craft, 28 Miss. 70; Bennett v. City of Buffalo, 17 N. Y. 383; Denio, J., 390; 40 N. Y. 372, 377; Roe v. Williston, 20 Wis. 240; People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591; State v. Vanderbilt, 33 N. J. Law, 38; Kelsey v. Abbot, 13 Cal. 609.

9 State v. Township of Union, 36 N. J. Law, 309; State v. Hardin, 34 N. J. Law, 365. People v. Castro, 39 Cal. 65. Biddleman v. Brooks, 28 Cal. 72.

Abbott v. Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162; Hume v. Wainscott, 46 Mo. 145; Baskins v. Winston, 24 Miss. 431.

7 Crawford v. Schmidt, 47 Cal. 617.

9 Van Voorhis v. Budd, 39 Barb. 479.

8

People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 591.

10 Pierce v. Richardson, 37 N. H. 307.

occupant is void.1 Where the statute requires the name of the owner or occupant, listing in name of the landlord is not sufficient." In Massachusetts improved lands must be assessed in the name of the true owner, and that of a former owner is not sufficient. Where lands are to be assessed to the proprietor, a person in possession under a parol contract does not come within that description." Where the statute requires the name of "the owner or possessor," land which was mortgaged was listed in the name of the mortgagee who had never been in possession, but such assessment was held void.5

The name of the person who by law is to be assessed with the tax becomes an essential element in the description of the land. It is the right of every citizen to know for what property he is assessed and is required to pay taxes, and in those States where the law allows land to be assessed as unknown, it is only on condition that the name of • the owner cannot be ascertained. There are exceptions to this proposition as to certain classes of land, in particular States. Thus in Pennsylvania uncultivated lands are assessed without particular reference to the ownership, in Maine and in Massachusetts "unimproved lands of non-residents," and in Illinois all lands are assessed as lands, without reference to the person who may own them. The land, and not the owner, is considered the debtor for the tax. As to all such lands the name of the owner is not essential.

Where the owner dies, and a number of persons are entitled as heirs to the land, it is not necessary to list it in the name of all the parties entitled, but a general designation of the parties is sufficient, as "widow and heirs of Zophar S. Wheeler," "Henry Toland's heirs," or the "estate of I. B. Coles, deceased." But where the land is assessed in the name of the widow only, so far as the interest of the infant heir is concerned, the listing is void.'

Irrespective of the name of the owner, there must be a description of the land on the roll, not only that each person may see that his land is properly assessed, but also because in case the land is sold for non-payment of taxes, the title of the purchaser depends on the accuracy of the description on the roll; he becomes the purchaser of the track described on the roll, and it is important that it should be so

1 Whitney v. Thomas, 23 N. Y. 281, 286; Yeuda v. Wheeler, 9 Texas, 408; Roe v. Williston, 20 Wis. 240; Corporation of Washington v. Pratt, 8 Wheat. 681.

2 Martin v. Mansfield, 3 Mass. 419.

4 Johnson v. McIntire, 1 Bibb, 295.

3 Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. 418.

5 Coombs v. Warren, 34 Maine, 89.

Wheeler v. Anthony. 10 Wend. 346; Ronkendorf v. Taylor, 4 Peters, 349; Noble ". Indianapolis, 16 Ind. 506; Pond v. Grafton, 21 Pick. 75; State v. Platt, Collector, 4 Zabr. 108.