Bisbee daily review., 1910-04-06
TH BsBEE DAILY REvEWBsBE MoRNe 9io

East Side. Frank Coggswell. General. Golden Gate. Goddard. Gardner. Hen 1ricks. Hayes. Holbruck. Howe1 Har- rison. Iron Monster. Little New York, Lookout. Mammoth Malvina. New York. Neptune. North Star. Ophir, Fucker. Sun Rise. Space. Surprise. Silver Spray. Silver Bear. sunny Side. Sacramento. Tip Top. Triangle. Uncle Sam. Wade Hampton. Wood Chopper. White Tail Deer. B.sbee. Belle, Isle. Columbia. Copper Monarch. Copper Crown. Copper Globe, Cuprite Hard. scrabble. Keystone. Lucky Jack. Ray ngsnd. Stars and Stripes. South View. Tack. Uaicn. Virginia
 Said Wia'7s claims consisting of CSC acres
 Thus nc-,iag s.xty-dve claims.
 It differs from the list shown in the assessment rol in this;.It namss the
 Dividend Wedge the Howell. the Belle and the Isle" which are omit ted firm the assessment roll: and it omits the Dividend. the Wedge. the Powell the Little Joker" the Sunrise" and the "Bene isle." all of which are included in the assessment roI,: il names only sixty-hva claims, ! whereas the assessment roll names 2 sixty seven.
 i Disregarding the discrepancy il the naming of the Dividend Wedge and the Belle Isle as a mere matter of punctuation and the writing of Sun Rise as a compound name, the error in tss names Howell and Powell" and the mention of tho Little Joker claim in the assessment list inadmiss- ible In proof of the allegations of the complaint
 Again the complaint diners from | the list shown ia the duplicate assess | ment roll in this: IL names the How ell" the Dividend wedge," the Belle" and the Isle ali cf which are omitted from the duplicate assess ment roll; and 1t omits the Powell, the ~Diviiend." the Wedge and she Belle Isle an Of which are included ! in the duplicate assessment roll.
 The variance disclosed renders the l roll inadmissable under the complaint.
 Again it differs from the list con tained in the delinquent roll in this: It names the Dividend Wedge, the Howell" and the Silver Bear" al Of which are emitted from the delin- | quent roll and it onlits the "Divi- dend' the Wedge" and the Pow | ell" all Of which gre included in the delinquent roll.
 The delinquent roll is therefore in- admissible.
 And finally the back tax book is i inadmissible under the objection made. for the complaint differs from the list n the hack tax book in this: It names the Dividend Wedge. the ! Howell, the Silver Bear the Belle" and the Isle" all Of which are emitted from the back tax book. i and 1t omits the Dividend" the Wedge the "PoweI~ and the Belle Is'e." all of which gre included in the back tax book.
 The importaIce~f the objections ! here considered is rendered more ap- ] parent by consideration of the na- ture of the action. It is an action quasi in rem to nx lien upon speci- fic property. No personal judgment 1 can be had.
 The statutes. section SS. act %. laws of 1908. provides;
 i The judgment. if against the
 defendant. shall describe the land
 upon which the taxes are found 10 be due. shall state the amount i of taxes and interest found to be due upon each tract or lot. and the year CT years for which the same are due, up to the rendi ton thereof. and shall decree that the len of the territory be en- forced and that the real estate or 1 so much thereof as may be neces- sary to satisfy said judgment. in terest and costs be sold. and exc cution shall be issued thereon. which shal be executed as in other
 eases of judgment and execution.
 and said judgment shall be a first lien upon said land
 ! This statute was adopted from Mis- i sOuri. and tte prior construction there i Of by the courts of last resort or the state of Missouri is. under well estab- hshed principles. controlling upon us. ' 4 judgment in an action to collect ' back taxes, differing from the com | plaint in the discretion Of the proper 1 ty sought to be subjected to the lien of such tax is void. Miner ys. Ship 'sy CMo. 1SSS). : s. W. II S. w. 573; ODay vs. McDaniel (do. 1904. I subsequent to the passage of act No. 92l. 80 s. W. S95.
 Nor is the admission of this evi, denee rendered harmless by the proof that an amount equivalent to the tax upon the property 2s originally asses sed was rendered by the appellee in full payment of it's tax for the purpose of bringing a suit in equity to injoia the collection of the tax upon the va Fious raises and subsequently paid to 1 the county in the course Of the suit, and credited by it upon the entire tax claimed to be due. Assuming that it was paid and accepted as a discharge cf the original tax. as appellant now contends was the fact, the amount now in suit is the tax upon the raise. The fact of payment of the origina' tax does rot dispense with the neces- i sity of proof of an assessment under the facts alleged in the complaint.
 The defense also objected upon the