Case Name: Gardner and Mosely vs. Brown
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1839-04
Citations: 1 Hum. 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gardner and Mosely vs. Brown.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 354–368

Head Matter:
Gardner and Mosely vs. Brown.
When the sheriff reported land as liable for double taxes in the name of Caleb Cross’s heirs, and tire land was ordered to be sold for the payment of such taxes, as the property of Caleb Cross, when the land in fact belonged to John Anderson at the time of such report and judgment: Hold, that such judgmentwas void and communicated no title to a purchaser under it.
The act of 1813, ch. 98, requires that the order of sale should set forth llm number of the entry and the grant, with the specialties belonging to them, if there was both'an entry and grant; and if no grant, then the number of the entry and tiro specialties belonging to it.
Jesse Brown instituted an action of ejectment on the 11th day of October, 1836, in the circuit court of Weakley county against Alfred Gardner and Robert Mosely for the recovery of the possession of six hundred and forty acres of land lying in the county of Weakley, in the twelfth surveyor’s district, on the waters of Obion river, in range one, section nine. The defendants entered into the common rule, and the cause came on for trial at the June term, 1839, before Judge Harris and a jury. The plaintiff read a grant for the land in controversy from the State of Tennessee to Jesse Brown, bearing date 3d January, ISST, duly registered, and reciting that “in considera lio a of military services performed by Caleb Cross for the State of North Carolina, wai'rant, No. 5050, dated 6th December, 1797, for six hundred and forty acres, and entered on the 23d day of March, 1823, No. of entry, 1328, there is granted by-the State of Tennessee unto Jesse Brown, assignee of the trustees of the University of North Carolina, a certain tract or parcel of laud containing six hundred and forty acres.”
It was admitted that defendants were in possession of the land covered by the grant and that it lay in the county of Weakley. The defendants then read to the jury a transcript of certain proceedings of the county court of Weakley in the following words:
“State of Tennessee, Weakley county. At a court of pleas and quarter sessions begun and held for said county on the 4th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1828, being the second Monday in said month, at the house of John Ter-rill, there being no court-house in said county, before the worshipful J. R. Shultz, Stephen Smart, J. II. Ward, &c. &c. esquires, justices of the peace for said county.
“January 15,1828. Tuesday morning, nine o’clock,' court met according to adjournment, present, the worshipful John Webb, J. R. Shultz, Joseph Wilson, &c. &c. &e. esquires, justices of the peace for said county. The court then proceeded to lay a tax for the present year, a majority of the justices present, when it was ordered that the State tax be according to the law of this State. The court then proceeded to lay a tax to meet the contingent expenses of this year, when it was ordered that the tax should be as follows, to .wit: on each hundred acres-of land eighteen and three-fourth cents, for the support of the jury eighteen and three-fourth cents, for public building twenty-five cents.
“State of Tennessee, Weakley county, January sessions, 1829. At a court of pleas and quarter sessions, begun and -held for the county of Weakley, at the court-house in the town of Dresden, on the second Monday in January, A. D. 1829, it being the 12th day of said month, present, the worshipful John Webb, J. H. Ward, John R. Shultz, Stephen Smart, &e. &e. esquires, justices of the peace for said county, and loseph Ury, deputy clerk.
“Tuesday, January sessions, 1829. Court met according • to adjournment, present, the worshipful John Webb, Perry Vincent and John M. Shultz, esquires. The court then proceeded to lay a tax for the purposes of county revenue, &c. when it was ordered and decreed by the court that the following rates of taxes upon the following property hereinafter mentioned be established for the present year, to wit: that the State tax upon eacjh hundred acres of land be eighteen and three-fourth cents, as heretofore established by law; in addition to which there shall be levied upon each and every hundred acres of land the following tax for the following purposes, to wit: to defray the expenses of the county eighteen and three-fourth cents, to defray the expenses of jurors eighteen and three-fourth cents, and for public building eighteen and three-fourth cents.
“State of Tennessee, Weakley county. January sessions, county court, 1830. At a court of pleas and quarter sessions, begun and held for said county at the court-house in the town of Dresden, on the second Monday in January, being the 11th day of said month, in the year of our Lord 1830, 'before the worshipful John Webb, J. R. Shultz, Stephen Smart, Joseph Wilson, Daniel Campbell, Perry Vincent, &c. &c. &c. esquires, justices of the peace for said county, and William H. Johnson, clerk. The court then proceeded to lay a tax for the purposes of' county revenue, &c. when it was ordered and decreed by the court that the following rates of taxes upon the following property hereinafter specified be established for the present year,' to wit: that the State tax upon each hundred acres of land be eighteen and three-fourth cents, as heretofore established by law; in addition to which there shall be levied on each hundred acres of land the following taxes for the following purposes, to wit: to defray the county expenses eighteen and three-fourth cents, to defray the expenses of jurors eighteen and three-fourth cents, for the support of the poor twenty-five cents, and to defray the expenses of building the court-house twenr ty-five cents!
“State of Tennessee, Weakley county. At a court of pleas and quarter sessions, begun and held in and for said county of Weakley, at the court-house in the town of-Dresden, on the second Monday in January, it being the 10th day of said month, in the year of our Lord 1831, before the worshipful J. II. Shultz, Stephen Smart, P. Vincent, &c. &c. esquires, justices of the peace for said county, and William H. Johnson, clerk.
“Friday, January sessions, 1831. This day, being the day appointed on Monday for the transaction of county business, the court proceeded. Present, T. 0. White, J. H. Moore, E. D. Dickson, Perry Vincent, J. R. Shultz j &c. &c. &c. esquires, being a majority ot the justices of said county of Weakley, to lay the taxes for the year 1831, to wit: for county contingences the following tax, on each hundred acres of land twelve and a half cents; for building the courthouse eighteen and three-fourth cents. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary to lay a tax for the support of the poor for the year 1831 in said county, it is therefore ordered by the court that a tax of six cents be laid on each hundred acres of land. Ordered, that the clerk tax the State tax on all taxable property in said county, for 1831, as prescribed by law.
“Tuesday, January sessions, 1832. This day, before the worshipful T. C. White, Perry Vincent, J. F. Coult, &c. &c. &c. esquires, justices of the court of pleas and quarter sessions, came Alfred Gardner, sheriff and collector of the public taxes for said county, and presented here into court the following report, to wit:
“State of Tennessee, Weakley county, January, 1832. I, Alfred Gardner, sheriff and collector of the public taxes for the county of Weakley, do hereby report to court the following tracts and parts of tracts of land and town lots as having been omitted to be given in for the taxes for the years 1828, ’29, ’30 and ’31, as specified in this report; that the same lie within the limits of this county; that the same are liable for double taxes for said years; that the double taxes thereon remain due and unpaid for the years as hereinafter specified, and the respective owners or claimants thereof have no goods or chattels within my county on which I can dis-train for said double taxes, to wit, (amongst others:)
“Caleb Cross’s heirs, six hundred and forty acres, entry No. 1328, lying in the twelfth district, first range and ninth section, reported for the year 1828, clerk’s fee one dollar and forty cents, sheriff’s one dollar, printer’s one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; for 1829, clerk’s fee one dollar and forty cents, sheriff’s one dollar, printer’s fee one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; for 1830, clerk’s fee one dollar and forty cents, sheriff’s one dollar, printer’s one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; for 1831, clerk’s fee one dollar and forty cents, sheriff’s one dollar, printer’s one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents.
“January 10th, 1832. Alfred Gardner,
Sheriff and collector for Weakley county.”
“Whereupon it is considered by the court that judgment be and is hereby entered against the aforesaid tracts of land and parts of tracts of land and town lots in the name of the State for the sums annexed to each, being the amount of double taxes, costs and charges due severally thereon for the years 1828, ’29,’30 and ’31, as therein specified; and it is ordered by the court that said several tracts of land and parts of tracts of land and town lots, or as much thereof as shall be sufficient of each of them to satisfy the double taxes, costs and charges annexed to them severally, be sold as the law directs.
“Order of sale: State of Tennessee, to the sheriff' of Weak-ley county, greeting: You are hereby commanded to execute and return the following order of sale, to wit:
“State of Tennessee, W ealdey county. Court of pleas and quarter sessions, January session, 1832. Whereas, Alfred Gardner, sheriff and collector of the public taxes for the county of Weakley, reported to court the following tracts and parts of tracts of land and town lots as having been omitted to be given in for the years 1828, 1829, 1830 and 1831, as specified in this report, that the same are liable to double taxes for said years, and that the same be within the limits of Weakley county, and that the double taxes thereon remain- due and unpaid for the years hereinafter specified, and that the respective owners or claimants thereof have no goods or chattels in his county on which he can distrain for said double taxes, to wit: (amongst others,) Caleb Cross’s heirs six hundred and forty acres, No. 1328, lying in the twelfth surveyor’s district, first range and the ninth section, reported for the year 1828: clerk’s fees one dollar and forty cents, sheriff's fee one dollar, printer’s fee one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; 1829, clerk’s fees one dollar and forty cents, sheriif’s fee one dollar, printer’s fee one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; 1830, clerk’s fees one dollar and forty cents, sheriff’s fee one dollar, printer’s fee one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; 1831, clerk’s fees one dollar and forty cents, sheriif’s fee one dollar, printer’s fee one dollar and fifty cents, taxes four dollars and forty cents; total thirty-three dollars and twenty cents, &c. &c. Alfred Gardner,
Sheriff and collector for Weakley county.’’
“Whereupon it is considered by the court that judgment be and is hereby entered against the aforesaid tracts and parts of tracts of land and town lots in the name of the State, for the sums annexed to each, being the amount of double taxes, costs and charges due severally thereon for the years 1828,1829, 1830 and 1831, as there specified, and is ordered by the court that said several tracts of land and town lots, or so much thereof as shall be sufficient of each of them to satisfy the double taxes, costs and charges annexed to them severally, be sold as the law directs.
William H. Johnson,
Clerk Weakley county court.
“Endorsed: ‘Order, of sale for double taxes for the years 1828, 1829,1830 and 1831. Issued 10th February, 1832, came to hand the same day issued.
Alfred Gardner,
Sheriff and collector for Weakley county.’
“Sheriff’s return: State of Tennessee, Weakley county, November 5th and 6th, 1832, "being the first Monday in said month and the succeeding day. Be it remembered, that I, Alfred Gardner, sheriff and collector of the public taxes for the comriy of Weakley, in obedience J.o the foregoing judgment and order of salo, after the samo came to my hands, forthwith caused it to be advertised duly and properly in the govAval newspapers printed and published in the several pjacegj ag ^g statutes is made and provided, in each of saj¿ paperg three times successively, three months, before the day of sale, setting forth and stating in said advertisement, so published as aforesaid, that on the first Monday in November, 1832, and the succeeding day, at the court-house door in the town of Dresden, I should offer and expose to’ public sale, according to the acts of assembly in such cases made and provided, the ■ said several tracts and parts of tracts in said order of sale mentioned for the double taxes, cost and charges, for the several years therein specified, unless the same were previously paid and satisfied. In pursuance of which said order of sale and advertisement as aforesaid, I, Alfred Gardner, sheriff and collector as aforesaid, at the court-house in the town of Dresden, on the said first Monday in November, 1832, and the succeeding day, being the 5th and 6th day of said month, between the hours of ten o’clock in the forenoon and sunset of each day, offered and exposed to public sale, according to the statutes in suelea-ses made and provided, the following tracts of land and parts of tracts of land in said order of sale mentioned, the double taxes, costs and charges thereon then and there remaining due and unsatisfied as specified in said order of sale; and after having duly and properly cried, offered and exposed the said land, or so much thereof as would be sufficient to satisfy the double taxes, cost and charges due thereon, and thereupon sold the same to the following persons, who respectively bid therefor, as each tract was severally exposed, and offered to take the same and pay the double taxes; costs and charges, for the whole number of acres as herein after expressed; and after further offering and crying the same, and no other person offering to pay the double taxes, costs and charges for a less number of acres the same were by me bid off to the respective persons as follows; to wit: (amongst others,) the tract of six hundred and forty acres, entry No. 1328, reported in the name of Caleb Cross’s heirs for the years 1828, 1829, 1830 and 1831; to Henry A. Garrett and Robert Mosely jointly, for the sum of thirty. three dollars and twenty cents, it being the amount of double taxes and costs due for said year.
Alfeed Gardner,
Sheriff and collector for Weakley county.”
The defendants then read a deed, duly proven and registered, from the sheriff and collector of the taxes for the county of Weakley for the land in controversy to H. A. Garrett and Robert Mosely, and a deed from Garrett to A. Gardn er, also proven and registered. The coúrt charged the jury that (the identity of the land covered by Brown’s grant and the title papers of the defendants being admitted as well as the possession of defendants) the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict unless his title was divested by the judgment of the county court of Weakley and sale of the land for taxes. He further charged the jury that the record read by the defendants showed that the land was reported as entry 1328 for six hundred and forty acres in the name of the heirs of Caleb Cross; that as said entry had been assigned to the plaintiff, and the grant had been issued in' his name, the land should have been reported in the name of Jesse Brown, the true owner; that it not having heen so reported, the judgment of the county court ordering the sale was void and communicated no title to the defendants. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and a motion for a new' trial being made and overruled, the defendants appealed in error to the supreme court,
M. Brown, for plaiiitiff in error.
The question turns bli the validity of the judgment of the county court of Weakley condemning the land for taxes. The only objection raised to the record in the court below was, that the land was reported in the name of the heirs of Caleb Cross, when the title had passed into Jesse Brown, and was in him at the date of the report and judgment; which thé judge presiding decided was a good objection, and declared the judgment, sale and proceedings under them were absolutely void.
The report of the sheriff judgment and order of sale are' in the exact forms prescribed by the statute of 1819, ch. 53. The report shows that the land lies in Weakley county, that the taxes are due and unpaid, and that there was no personal property that could be distrained for the payment-These are all the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, and the sheriff is the proper person to report them. The judgment and order of sale, issued to the sheriff, on which said land was sold, also contain these facts, and .are in strict pursuance of the statute of 1819, ch. 53. Hamilton vs. Burum, 3 Yerger, 355, and Anderson vs. Williams, et.al. (not reported) were cases of reports made for single taxes and do not conflict with this case; on the contrary, the principles there decided are referred to as fully sustaining this case.
The decision of the court below, declaring the judgment void because it was not in the name of the true owner, is clearly erroneous. The statute of 1803, ch. 3, sec. 3, 1 Scott, 763, and 1813, ch. 98, sec. 3, 2 Scott, 159, makes the true owner immaterial, so that the land be correctly described so as to distinguish it, which is well done in this case. See Cook’s Rep. 362: 4 Haywood, 63. The statute of.1826, ch. 36, never applied to double tax sales, and was only directory in the cases where it did apply.
Before the statute of 1803, the proceedings to enforce the payment of taxes was in personam only. 5 Haywood, 298. The true owner must be cited; notice was necessary before judgment, and then the levy must be made; no lien attaching before levy. The case of M’Carroll and Weeks, 2 Tenn. Rep. and Francis vs. Washburn, 5 Haywood, 294, were both judgments rendered on the laws prior to 1803, and so were nearly all the cases reported in the books. But the statutes of 1813 and 1819 changed the nature of the proceedings entirely. No personal notice is required. The law fixes the lien the hour the tax is laid, and no conveyance or transfer before or after the tax is laid divests the lien. The judgment is in rem. It is not that the State recover of the owner, to be levied of his lands, but it is “that judgment be and is hereby entered against the aforesaid tract or tracts of land in the name of the State,” &c. No notice issues before judgment. Every man who owns land knows it, and. the law gives Mm notice to come and pay the taxes due the State. It is not a case ex parte, in which one individual is ■ moving against another, Dut it is the State demanding sup-» port from its citizens in return for the protection they receive. 2 Tenn. 219 and 220. It is on this ground that, after the facts which give jurisdiction are found on the record, the presumption of law is in favor of the regularity of the proceedings. A judgment thus rendered is binding and conclusive when attacked in a collateral way, although it might be erroneous and reversible, and after reversal the purchaser would not be affected. 4 Hay. 63: 1 Star. Ev. 238, and various other authorities.
The certainty of the description of the land in this case is the highest degree of certainty. The description of number, entry, district, range and section determines its location and distinguishes it from all other lands with mathematical certainty. The surveyors’ districts were laid off and the range and section lines run in 1819 before any counties were laid off. See 2 Hay. and Cobbs’ Digest, 86 and 87. The counties were laid off by these district, range, and section lines. (See for illustration the counties of Henry and Weakley.) Statute 1821, ch. 32, sec. 1, and 1823, ch. 112.
These public laws, (which the court is bound to notice judicially,) and the description given by the report of the sheriff, “entry No. 1328, lying in the twelfth surveyor’s district, in the first range and ninth section,” will enable this court, without leaving their seats, to determine not only that this land lies in Weakley county, but also the part of the county in which it does lie. The entry too distinguishes it from all others.
John Dunlap, for defendants in error:
1. If a claim be set up under a judgment of another court, this court will examine into the jurisdiction of that court, and if it has not the power or jurisdiction which it assumed to exercise, its judgment will be disregarded. 1 Yer. 125, Hodges vs. Deaderick. See 1 Peters, 340, as to the power of the courts to look collaterally into the proceedings of other courts. Courts of special and limited jurisdiction derogating from the general Íurisdiction courts of common law are ever strict-restrained, and cannot be extended farther than the letter of their powers will clearly warrant. 2 Chitty’s Black. 66: g Williams, 408-409. See the case of Dixon vs. Ca-ruthers, 9 Yer. 30, where a judgment rendered by a justice for- m.ore than one hundred dollars was held to be void; in that case the justice had jurisdiction for a part of the amount he gave judgment for, as it will be contended the county court had in this case.
2. It is insisted that the court did not err because the land was not reported in the name of'the true owner, required by the act of 1826, ch. 36, sec. 1. Pamphlet act 49, Hay. and Cobbs, 338. This act of 1826, it is insisted, repeals the act of 1823, ch. 98, sec. 3 and 16; which act of 1826 makes it the duty of the commissioners appointed by the county courts for the Western District to make their reports of land in the name of the real owner. The act of 1821, ch. 69, sec, 1, Hay. and Cobbs, 353, makes it the duty of the principal surveyors west of the Tennessee river to furnish the clerks of the different counties in the district with a list of lands lying in their counties once a year, stating distinctly in said list the. names of the owner, and whether held by deed, grant or entry. See the act of 1819, ch. 53, sec. 11, same book, 354. It is also made the duty of all public officers, clerks, registers and others, to furnish the sheriff with information as to the owner’s name; with such aids and means of information' furnished the sheriff by the law and the public officers he can scarcely be mistaken as to who is the owner pf the land.
3. Admitting the act of 1813, which dispenses with a report of the land in the true owner’s name, to be in full force, it is insisted that neither the report nor advertisement made by the sheriff is made in pursuance of said act. When reported in the name of' the true owner a general description is sufficient, as has been given in this case, but when the report is made in the wrong name, as has been done in this case, a description including all specialties is required by said act. The act requiring the report to be made in the name of some person, and being made in the name of Caleb Cross’s heirs which is too general to designate any particular person, it is therefore insisted that the report lias not been made in the. name of any person. The heirs not being designated by name, and the report wanting a name as the claimant or owner of the land, the sheriff could not report the fact that the claimant or owner thereof (which means the person in whose name the land has been reported) has no goods or chattels upon which he can levy for said taxes; nor can the eourt make their order of condemnation for the sale of said land until said return is made by the sheriff that he can find no goods and chattels of the owner or claimant; and the act of 1813 makes the taxes assessed a lien upon all the proper, ty both real and personal of the person in whose name the land has been reported. See Cook’s Rep. 360.
4. No presumption can be raised in behalf of a collector who sells real estate for taxes to cover any radical defect in the proceedings; the proof of regularity rests upon the person claiming under the tax sale. 4 Peters, 359. In the case in Peters the description given in the advertisement was half of lot No. 4, square 491; the court held this to be bad because it had not been described as the undivided half.
5. Defendants should have proved the advertisement upon the trial of the cause. It is insisted that the plaintiff’s return of the sale and his statement that he had complied with the requisitions of the law is not sufficient; he should have stated the facts in his return relative to the advertisement, for if the advertisement is not made as directed by the act of 1822, ch. 181, (Play, and Cobbs, 344,) the sale is declared to be void. The facts must be stated in the sheriff’s return, if his return be evidence, but the court may judge whether the law has been complied with, as was done in the case of Hamilton vs. Burum, 3 Yer. 355. Nothing can be left to intendment. There the court would presume nothing in favor of the judgment of the court. The reason is much stronger for not presuming any thing in favor of the acts of a public officer. That ail pre-requisites must be shown to have been done before a valid, sale can be made, see 9 Crunch, 64: Parker vs. Rule's lessee C. R. ¡8. C. U. S. 271.
6. As this proceeding is not strictly in rem. but mixed, being first against the personal property and then the land, it must be governed by the strict rules of the common law as to the admission of the record in evidence: this record cannot-therefore be read, for Brown was not a party and does not claim under those who were parties subsequent to these proceedings, his right being complete prior to the proceedings.
Below the court will find a collection of the cases by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the subject of tax sales. Stead’s executors vs. Course, 4 Cranch, 403: Parker vs. Rule's lessee, 9 Cranch, 64: Williams, et al. vs. Peyton’s lessee, 4 Wheaton, 77: M’Clung vs. Ross, 5 Wheaton, 116: Thatcher, et al. vs. Powell, et al. 6 Wheaton, 110: Rocken-dorf vs. Taylor, 4 Peters’ C. C. Rep. 349. Same cases in the Condensed Reports of the Supreme Court United States. Stead’s executors vs. Course, 3d vol. 151: Parker vs. Rule’s lessee, 3d vol. 271: Williams, et al. vs. Peyton’s lessee, 4th vol. 395: M’Clung vs. Ross, 4th vol. 603; Thatcher vs. Powell, lessee, 5th vol. 28.
See appendix to this term.

Opinion:
Reese, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question involved in this case is the validity of a tax sale under which the plaintiff in error claims title. The sheriff in January, 1832, reported the land which is the subject of controversy as liable for double taxes for the years 1828, 1829, 1830 and 1831, by the following description of it, to wit: "Caleb Cross's heirs six hundz'ed and forty, entry No. 1328, lying in the twelfth district in the first range ninth section." The order of sale contained the same description. Cross's heirs were not the true owners; for the entry having been assigned, the land on the 3d day of January, 1827, was granted to Jesse Brown the lessor of the plaintiff. On the one side it is insisted that the act of 1826, ch. 36, which makes it "the duty of the commissioners appointed by the county court south and west of the congressional line, in receiving and reporting a list of the taxable property, to report all the lands so reported by them in the name of the real owner, giving at the same time the number of entry, section and range," &c. applies to the sheriff in making his report of land liable to double taxes. This proposition is de nied on the other side, and it is insisted that the duty of the sheriff in that respect is prescribed and governed by the. acts of 1813, ch. 98, and 1819, ch. 53. Without deeming it necessary here to determine the effect and operation of the act of 1826, ch. 36, in a case of double taxes, let us en-quire whether the sale in the record before us be good according to the provisions of the acts of 1813 and 1819 referred to. The third section of the first named act declares that "the public tax shall be and remain a lien upon all land and other species of taxable property, notwithstanding the same may have been divided or alienated, and notwithstanding the same may have been listed and advertised in the name of others than those who actually own the same at the time of the return of such property or sale thereof, although the owner be not known, provided that such land or other property be specially and particularly described in such return and advertisement; and it shall be the duty of the collector of public taxes to give the number of the grant or entry, with all special calls, in his advertisement." Without insisting that this section, by its terms, provides only for the continuance of the lien under the circumstances described, but taking it to mean what in terms it does not declare, that the sale in such cases shall be good, the enquiry recurs, Is the sale in the case before us in conformity with its provisions? We answer it is not, in two particulars: first, the land is not particularly and specially described in the return; and secondly, it is described by the number of the entry, and not by the number of the grant. The words of the section indeed, are that it shall be described by a reference to the "grant or entry;" the meaning of which is, that if the land be granted the number of the grant shall be referred to, and if it be not granted, that the number of the entry shall be referred to, and not that, in case of granted land, a reference may be made by the officer, at his election, to the number either of the grant or entry. It is to be observed that in case of claimants by mere conveyance it might well, and would often happen, that the deed would have reference to the number of the grant and not to that of the entry, and the notice intended to be given in such case would be more like ly noticed by reference to the number of the grant. Such would be our view of this section in application to the case before us, if it stand alone; but if it be said that the reference to the number of the grant or entry is required in relation to the advertisement, we reply that the sixteenth section of the same act makes it the duty of the clerk in the order of sale to express "the number of the grant or entry or both, as the case may be, together with all the specialties belonging to such claim." This section. shows that where there is an entry and grant the number of each must be stated in the order of sale itself, as well as the specialties belonging to them. And the act of 1819, ch. 53, sec. 1, in the form of the sheriff's report and order of sale thereon given, requires that the number of the grant and entry, and their dates likewise, should be stated, and the water course upon which the land lies. If it be said that the act of 1826, ch. 36, dispenses with the provisions of the acts above referred to in this section of the statute, and substitutes a mode of description applicable to the land system here, we reply that the argument of the plaintiff in error is that that act does not apply to the case of a collector's report for double taxes, and if that argument be founded in error then the collector is required to report in the name of the real owner, which is not done. The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.