Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/880

844 844 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Tax Liens on Land held Adversely for the Statutory Period. — It is customary for the legislature to provide that there shall be a lien on land for taxes due. Even though no lien is expressly created, as long as the statute provides for the sale of real estate such taxes in effect impose an encumbrance on the land.^ Such legislation may be divided roughly into two classes: the first makes the tax a lien on the corpus of the land without regard to the state of the title; the second subjects to the possibility of sale only the estate of the tax debtor.^ Under the first type of statute a tax sale followed by a delivery of the tax deed after the period allowed for redemption would, provided all statutory require- ments were exactly followed and the taxes in default were levied and assessed in accordance with law, pass a fee simple to the purchaser. But where only the estate of the tax debtor can be disposed of, caveat emptor. It frequently happens that a tax lien attaches to the corpus of land held adversely to the holder of the legal title. If the tax lien attaches to the land after the Statute of Limitations has run, it is, of course, iii- cvunbent on the new owner of the land to discharge the tax thereon, even though the holder of the record title was named in the assessment. Where the lien attaches to the land before the adverse possession has ripened into title it may be asked whether such a lien will prevent the acquisition of title when the period prescribed by the statute has expired. There is no good reason why it should do so. An adverse possessor ac- quires a title independent of the former owner. But it is clear that the land remains subject to the lien, and that the owner under the statute must pay the taxes or suffer foreclosure.' It is sometimes said that twenty years' adverse possession creates a paramount title. This should be qualified. The land so acquired remains subject to an ease- ment in favor of the owner of adjoining premises unless the holding has been adverse to the easement.* Where a lien is imposed on the very land itself, possession cannot be adverse to it, and no period of holding can destroy it any more than it can destroy the land. The next question is whether a sale of land on foreclosure of such a lien interrupts the adverse possession, so that no title is acquired against the purchaser for taxes until the Statute of Limitations has run anew after the delivery of the tax deed. The answer is emphatically in the tributed to the subjection of the vessel to a restraint. In such event, the shipowner is not excused from performance of a contract by the restraint-of -princes clause. But unless he himself contributed to the loss, he can still recover upon a policy of insurance. See Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 6 ed., § 88; Scrutton, CnARXER-PARTrEs AND Bills of Lading, 7 ed., 195-98. Cf. Dimn v. Bucknall Brothers, [1902] 2 K. B. 614. 2 See Ibid., §§ 467-70. See Black, Tax Titles, 2 ed., § 419. ' As long as the sovereign has something less than ownership of the land the pro- prietary right of the adverse possessor clearly should be protected. The state will recognize his right to compensation when the land is taken by right of eminent do- main before the statute has tolled the entry. Perry v. CUssold, [1907] A. C. 73. See 20 Harv. L. Rev. 563, 574. See, also, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 496. cumbrance is found in the case of equitable servitudes, or restrictions enforceable only in equity. Re Nisbet and Potts' Contract, [1905] i Ch. 391, aflSrmed, [1906} I Ch. 386. See 18 Harv. L. Rev. 608.
 * See 2 Tiffany, Real Property, § 573.
 * Another situation where the adverse possessor may acquire land subject to en-