Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-05-21

statement of his taxable property AMI re-
celVed none, but listed and assns,e.' rc!.-
taln described lands to hiu a. owner
thereof; that the lands as d .s..rihad on the
| assessment roll, and, in fac, we're sepa-
rate ana distinct pieces Of land; that the
assessor valued and assess ed said lands
as whole, as one body or tract of land:
~; ~'' t.'- amounted to 500; that said
LAX sd 4 }. pad; was entered on the de-
hn4nent list and all of said lands were
sol by the Treasurer of said County to
the defendant at Jhe delinquent tax sale
Ill 1873 tor the taxes, penalties and costs,
ainountin. to Sl005, that the defendant re-
celVed from the County Treasurer d GER
tlhcate OF sale and deed of conveyance of
said lands and had the same recorded in
the office of the County Recorder of said
County.
Judgment. The judgment of the court
below in effect annuls said assessment.
sale, certificate OF, sale and deed of convey
ance; adjudged the tax title TO said lands
claimed by the defendant to be null and
VOID: DEGREES that the plaintiff as the ad-
mInlstrator OF the estate of Felix Monet.
deceased, is entitled tp the exclusive pos
session and control Of said lands and per-
petually enjoins the defendant, his heirs
and assigns, from claiming or asserting
any right. title or interest in or to said
lands under or by virtue of said deed or
tax title
Inc lands being separate and distinct
parcels should have been valued and as
sessed separately; not being so valued and
assessed the assessment under the author
tiles is void.
In the State of Nevada VS. The Central
Pacific Railroad Company, p Nevada.
100, this court held that a taxpayer can
uhdef our statutes, pay the taxes upon
some Subdivisions of his property entered
upon the assessment roll and not on all.
and that 1T is the duty of the assessor TO
value each subdivision separately. Evi
IDENTITY the requirement that separate and
distinct pieces Of land shall be valued and
assessed separately is for the benefit of
the taxpayer.
In Cooley on Taxation, 2S0. the author
says when the two parcels are
| owned blythe same person. if the statute
requires a separate assessment. obedience
I" the requirement is essential to the val
idity of the proceedings
1t cannot he held in any case that if *
unimportant to the TAXPAYER whether this
requirement is complied with or not.
"In:eed 1t is made solely for his benefit.
1t would he wholly immaterial. 50 far a.
the interest Of the State is concerned
whether separate estates are or are not
separately assessed.
An" where a requirement has for its
sole object the benefit of the taxpaver
the necessity fora compliance with it cam
not he made to depend upon the circum
,j2'lr"S OF Il particular case. anC! the opin-
| ION OF court or jury regarding the i'm
portance of obedience to it in that in
| stance. That method of construinp stat
utes would abolish all certaintv.''
In People vs.. Hollister, IL Cal. 4OS. the
court held that, when several parcels of
land are assessed to the same person. thew
must be separately valued
In q New. above, the court said: ar
has been decided that adjoining town lots
owned by the same person. NAV be as
Sessed as one tract; but never under anv
statute similar to ours, that entirely sepa-
rate and distinct pieces of real estate and
personally, can Dc thrown together in one
general statement and valued as one piece
ol properly. Such an assessment is
void"
The judgment appealed from is at
tirmed.
we concur: BELKNAP, c. J.
Massey J.