#### Baldwin and others, Trustees, Appellants, vs. Barber and others, Respondents.

*December 6, 1916*

January *16, 1917.*

*Tax titles: Validity: When grantor of land bound to pay taxes.*

1. One cannot acquire a valid tax title founded upon a sale for taxes which it was his duty, either legally or equitably, to pay, and enforce it as against any person who would be prejudiced by his neglect.

2. Under sec. 1153, Stats. 1898, where land was conveyed (in this case by quitclaim deed) after the date of the tax warrant, it was the duty of the grantor to pay the taxes assessed before the conveyance, if there was no express agreement to the contrary.

Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Lang-lade county: T. W. Hogan, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to quiet title. Validity of tax deed. The material facts are as follows: On January 3, 1900, *George Baldwin,*being the owner of certain lands, conveyed the same to the predecessors in title of the defendants by long-form quitclaim deed, which recited that in consideration of $25 “the parties of the first part have given, granted, bargained, sold, remised, released and quitclaimed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, remise, release and quitclaim unto the party of the-second part, his heirs and assigns forever, the following described real estate in the county of Langlade, state of Wisconsin, to wit,” with the usual “to have and to hold” clause. The deed contained no covenant or agreement as to who should *paj*the taxes assessed against the property for the year 1899. The taxes were returned unpaid, and at the tax sale held on the 15th day of May succeeding, *Baldwin*purchased the premises at the tax sale. A tax certificate was issued to him for this land and other lands, and in due time a tax deed was issued to *Baldwin*dated May 21, 1903. Blaintiffs in this action claim under the tax deed. Defendants claim under the quitclaim deed given January 3, 1900.

*623Eor tbe appellants there was a brief by *Ryan, Gary &*Frank, and oral argument by *Patti V. Gary.*

*Wilbur E. Hurlbut,*for tbe respondents.

RoseNBEkry, J.

Tbe sole question is, Could *Baldwin*take a valid tax deed based upon tbe taxes assessed in 1899 upon tbe premises in question ? Tbe taxes for tbe year 1899 were assessed against *Baldwin,*and in addition to tbat fact sec. 1153, Stats. 1898, then provided:

> “As between tbe grantor and grantee of any land, wben there is no express agreement as to which shall pay tbe taxes tbat may be assessed thereon before tbe conveyance, if such land is conveyed even with or prior to tbe date of tbe warrant authorizing tbe collection of such taxes then tbe grantee shall pay tbe same; but if conveyed after tbat date then tbe grantor shall pay them.”

It appeared without dispute tbat tbe tax warrant was placed in the bands of tbe treasurer for collection on December 30, 1899. It is tbe established law of this state tbat no one can acquire a valid tax title founded upon a sale for taxes which it was bis duty, either legally or equitably, to pay, and enforce it as against any person who would be prejudiced by bis neglect. *Olson v.*McDonald, 156 Wis. 438, 145 N. W. 1078; *Mariner v. Milwaukee,*146 Wis. 605, 131 N. W. 442; *Perkins v. Wilkinson,*86 Wis. 538, 57 N. W. 371; *Bassett v. Welch,*22 Wis. 175.

We think the duty of paying this tax. was legally imposed upon *Baldwin*(1) by the assessment against him of tbe amount of tbe tax, and (2) by tbe terms of sec. 1153, Stats. 1898, which became part of tbe contract or deed between tbe parties, dated January 3, 1900. Tbe very purpose and object of assessing and levying taxes is to impose a legal duty upon tbe person against whom they are assessed and levied to pay them. The law of the land is a part of every contract. Sec. 1153, Stats. 1898, became a part of tbe contract between *624the parties, and by its terms it imposed upon *Baldwin*tbe legal duty, as between tbe grantor and tbe grantee, of paying these taxes. Tbe statute says, “as between tbe grantor and grantee of any land” tbe grantor shall pay tbe tax when tbe conveyance is made after tbe date of tbe tax warrant. Certainly there can be no claim in this case that *Baldwin*was not tbe grantor and that tbe predecessors in title of tbe defendants were not tbe grantees, and by tbe terms of tbe statute it was tbe duty of tbe grantor to pay tbe taxes in question. Tbe purchase of tbe tax certificate therefore amounted to nothing more than a payment of the tax, and tbe deed issued upon it was void.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.