Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/137

 HODGDON V. BUELBIGH. 153 �The court, therefore, holds that, under the act of 1848, e. 65, the purchaser did not acquire an ahsolute title to the lands under previous laws, and, in order to sustain his title, the purchaser must show a compliance with the requirements of this chapter. �In the return made by the treasurer, to the land agent of the tracts advertised by him, he states that "the said tracts or townships had been advertised by him as forfeited lands." It is sufficient to remark that this oertificate of the treasurer does not show any compliance by him with the requirements of the act. It may ail be true to the very letter, and yet the notice not have been published in a single paper mentioned in the act. A single advertisement, in any paper in the state, would justify this certifieate of the treasurer. �The papers introduced in evidence do not prove that notice was given as required. The first notice bears date Septem- ber 8, 1848, and recites that the several townships and traeta of land mentioned in the foUowing schedule have become forfeited, either in whole or in part, for the non-payment of the amount of taxes specified against each tract or township. The schedule is as foUows : "No. 8, E. 3, W. E. L. 102,39." �The number of acres on which the tax remained unpaid is nowhere stated in the notice, but the statement is of a most uncertain character, affording the owners but little inforitia- tion as to the property claimed to be forfeited, the allegation being " that the township, either in whole or in part," had become forfeited for taxes ; but whether the whole or a part, and what part, was forfeited, is nowhere averred. The amount of tax stated in the notice as remaining unpaid is also differ- ent from that found in the treasurer's return of March 23, 1849, in which he gives the amount of the state and county taxes unpaid for each of the years 1841, '42, '43, '44, amounL- ing, in the aggregate, to $100.94. In the opinion of the court, this notice was erroneous in both of these particulars : the number of acres of land on which the taxes were unpaid should have been truly stated, and also the amount of taxes remaining unpaid. If these objections are not valid, there ia another still remaining, which renders the notice wholly inop- ����