Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1830
..... of this corporation? this has not been contended, nor can it be necessary to prove the appointment of an officer of the corporation who has acted under its authority and whose proceedings, as in the present case, have received its express sanction. did the court below err in requiring the original assessment lists to be produced? ..... each half of this lot, so that so far as the assessment goes, it did not substantially differ from the instruction given. but the sale, to be valid, need not extend to the interest of both claimants. one having paid his share of the tax, the interest of the other may well be sold for ..... at another time ten days, at another eight. these omissions, it is contended, are fatal; that the publication being once made, it was essential to the validity of the notice that it should be published every seventh day thereafter. the words of the law are, "once a week." does this limit the publication to a ..... the assessment was made by a valuation of each half of the lot. to make a sale of the interest of one tenant in common for unpaid taxes valid, it need not extend to the interest of both claimants; one having paid his tax, the interest of the other may well be sold for the ..... of every fact necessary to enable him to fix a value upon the property would the sale be valid unless the same information had been communicated to the public in the notice. the tenth section of the act of congress provides that real property in washington on which two or more years' taxes shall be .....Tag this Judgment!