The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1872-06-06

tax thereon, and the expense arising from the
sale. thereby avoiding the disputes which
would grow out of claim for contribution,
where one tract was burdened with the taxes
upon itself and others also." 18th Pickering,
1872: "Each right number OF lot or DIVISION
must be ADVERTISED and separately sold at puo-
lie auction"
II is also held that the fact that the several
lots, tracts or parcels belong and are assessed
to the same person does not dispense WIN Tue
law or excuse deviation from 1t. Inc law
contemplates q sale in legal subdivisions ana
will not tolerate any act which tends to create
confusion in the land systems OF the States ana
the United States, and destroy the identity OF
land known to the law only by metes and
bounds. Shimmin against Inman, 10Th Maine,
228
Where several parcels of land belonging to
the same person are separately assessed, each
parcel is liable for its own specific tax and no
more. Donahoe VS.. Richerson, 21st Mis-
souri,, 420.
The lien created by the statute of this State
is upon each tract for its own tax, and 1t can
not, therefore, be sold to satisfy tax due upon
the Others. See Hayden VS.. Foster, 18th Pick
ering, 492. Where twenty-five distinct parcels
of land owned by one individual and situate
in the same town, were valued and taxed sepa-
rately, but one of them was sold to pay the
tax upon all of them; the sale was held VOID.
In this case the Court says: $50 numerous
and various are the collateral, deriYatlve and
dependent interests in estates which are ilaole
to taxation to one common owner having q
general property, that it would be attended
with the utmost inconvenience, and produce
great confusion of rights if the whole tax
could be charged upon one estate" See also
Oath Mississippi, 431.
In the case of Corporation of Washington
VS.. Pratt, this question arose under the statute,
aWhether where several lots belonged and
were assessed to one person, &C., it would be
lawful to sell one of the lots to pay the taxes
due upon all or each lot, would be liable only
to be sold DO pay the tax due on itself?" 10
which Judge johnson replied: "This ques,,
ton, thus stated, does not admit of general
answer. That each lot stands encumbered
with no more than its own taxes, and the lien
upon each is several and distinct"
In discussing the general imperfections OF
the tax laws and the titles made under them,
Blackwell, in his treatise on tax titles, says !:
GAS things now stand, tax title is no title at
at ALL Out of the numerous sales made under
the acts of Congress between the years 18OO
and 1918, not single one has been sustained !;
and not exceeding ten under the laws OF the
several States, out of at least twelve hundred
which have found their way to the Superior
Courts of the country"
The conclusion, therefore, is-1st. That the
statute of this State requires each lot, parcel
and tract of land to be returned, listed and
assessed separately. End. That the lien for
taxes attaches to each lot, parcel or tract. 3d..
That the Defendant, Wernecke, on rendering
to the Treasurer the tax due on lot 35, his
homestead, was entitled to have had that lot or
parcel discharged from all liability on the RI.
Fa. 4th. That the balance of the taxes as,
sessed against him should have been collected
out OF the sales, or otherwise, of the lands
upon which the remainder of the assessments
were made. 1t is, therefore, adjudged that the
sale made by L. B. johnson, Auditor, is void,
and that the certificate issued by him to the
Plaintiff, Whitner Symmes, is nullity.
1t is further adjudged that Complainant pay
the costs of the case.
JAMES L. ORR,
Judge 9Th Circuit.
Doth Nav. 1872.