Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/141

 HODGDON ». BTJRLEIGH. ���127 ���jear 1853, instead of 4,340, the quantity advertiseà and sold; the land itselî was not conveyed, but only the right, title, and interest of the state. For these reasons, in the opinion of the court, the deed of 1854 was invalid. �Some of the objections which have thus been considered have heretofore been presented to this court, and determined in accordance with this opinion. The opinion found in 2 Curtis (Clarke v. Strickland, 493) was drawn by Judge Ware, but it was, without doubt, sanctioned and approved by Judge Curtis, as the same was reported by him without comment or dissent. It was then decided that if a tax was legal, and the land forfeited for non-payment, a subsequent act of the legislature, giving further time for payment of the tax, was a waiver of the forfeiture, at least so far that the title under a tax sale must be made under this law. If the county com- missioners, in levying a tax, assess a larger sum than is granted by the legislature, it renders the whole tax void. When the treasurer, in his advertisement, gave as the sum due the whole amount, including the county tàx, it was a fa- tal defect in the proeeedings, — the county tax, being illegal, was not due. When the land agent was direeted by the stat- ute to sell the land, and he sold ail the right, title, and inter- est of the state, such a sale was not in accordance with the statute. �By three of these deeds, "the sale was only of the right, title, and interest of the state. " The other deed purports to convey 14,800 acres, but the advertisement only offered for sale "the right, title, and interest of the state in that num- ber of acres," and for this cause ail of these conveyances are deemed invalid. �In Clarke v. Strickland it was also decided "that if a tax was legal, and the land forfeited for its non-payment, the for- feiture was waived by the levy of another tax after the title of the state had become perfect under the forfeiture." If this principle is correct, it would invalidate the title of the demand- ant to the larger portion of the township. �The demandant claims that by the act of April 23, 1852, (chapter 172,) these deeds vested in the grantees a vaiid ����