St. Anthony & D. Elevator Co., Donovan Page Page 772 Sioux City & P. R. Co., Hollaway v. (Iowa) 673 580 998 42 953 971 475 797 267 658 236 St. Clair Tunnel Co., Turner v. (Mich.)... 720 626 St. Paul City R. Co., Fonda v. (Minn.)... 366 .774, 877 St. Paul Plow Co., Hodgson v. (Minn.). 956 Sakrison, Johnson v. (Minn.). 858 Saltmarsh v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. (Mich.) 981 Skinner v. First Nat. Bank of Pawnee City 169 Smith, Meyers v. (Neb.). 970 Snyder v. Norris (Neb.). .1109 .... Sanborn County, Prior v. (S. D.). 273 Sandidge v. Widmann (S. D.). 275 Sands v. Cruickshank (S. D.). 440 State v. Lowell (Minn.).. State v. Reinheimer (Iowa). State, Perugi v. (Wis.). State, Sweenie v. (Neb.). 815 Union Inv. Co., Sickles v. (Iowa). 534 State Bank v. Kelly (Iowa). 520 Steele-Smith Grocery Co. V. Potthast (Iowa) 517 Steketee v. Pratt (Mich.). 989 Universal Elevator Co., Moore v. (Mich.)..1015 .1130 Stephens v. Leonard (Mich.). Stephens, Youngbluth v. (Wis.). 443 Steward, Tuffree v. (Iowa). 681 Stewart v. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.). 854 Stewart v. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.)... 855 Stewart, McFarland v. (Iowa). 657 Vandeveer v. Higgins (Neb.). .1043 Stickle, German-American Bank v. (Neb.) 910 Van Eps. Brace v. (S. D.). 197 Stickney's Will, In re (Wis.). 921 Vanhousen v. Broehl (Neb.). 260 Teasdall, Richardson Drug Co. v. (Neb.)... 488 Theiler, Omaha Bottling Co. v. (Neb.). Thompson, Richardson v. (Neb.). Tompkins, People v. (Mich.). 308 815 Wanek v. City of Winona (Minn.). 851 973 407 416 245 405 705 629 351 555 CASES REPORTED. Wible v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. Widman v. Gay (Wis.). Wiggins, District Township of Franklin, Wilson, Oliver v. (N. D.). Page Withee v. Simon (Wis.). 679 Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux (Neb.). Woodward v. Smith (Wis.) 432 Woodworth v. Hascall (Neb.). 228 Wright Lumber Co. v. Hixon (Wis.)..1110, 1135 102 542 (Wis.) .1006 Yates v. City of Omaha (Neb.). 471 .1134 757 Yeisley v. Bennett (Mich.). 114 Wilson, State v. (Iowa). 230 Youngbluth v. Stephens (Wis.). 443 Windsor v. Polk County (Iowa). 323 Wineman v. Donovan (Mich.).. 642 Zerfing v. Seeling (S. D.). 140 Winona Railway & Light Co., Palmer v. (Minn.) 869 Winona & Dakota Grain Co., Porter v. (Minn.) 965 Wisted, Osman v. (Minn.). .1127 Zignego, Lidgerding v. (Minn.). .1107 See End of Index for Tables of Northwestern Cases in State Re ports. A FOR THE NORTHWESTERN REPORTER. VOLUME 80. DUMPHEY v. HILTON et al. (Supreme Court of Michigan. Sept. 19, 1899.) TAX SALE-REDEMPTION-COMPETENCY OF OWNER-TIME FOR REDEMPTION. The mere fact that an owner of land, which has been sold for taxes pursuant to a decree m chancery, was mentally incompetent, at the time of the entry of such decree and ever since, and, up to the time of the application to open it, has remained incompetent, to attend to his business affairs, will not authorize a proceeding by a next friend which in effect amounts to granting him the right to redeem from the tax sale after the expiration of the time allowed by law for redemption, when no provision therefor is made by statute. Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county, in chancery; Edward D. Kinne, Judge. Petition by Edith Dumphey, as guardian of Azuba Dumphey, to open a decree, pursuant to which her ward's lands were sold for taxes. A demurrer was interposed by Joseph S. Hilton and another. From a decree sustaining the demurrer, petitioner appealed. Affirmed. The relator was the defendant in Hilton v. Dumphey, 71 N. W. 527. After that decision, relator filed the petition in this case to reopen the decree in chancery rendered in May, 1892, under which the lands were sold and bid off to the state. The petition is made by Edith Dumphey, who was appointed the general guardian of Azuba Dumphey in September, 1897, and asks for her appointment as next friend to prosecute the petition; that said Azuba is now, and has been for eight years, mentally incompetent; that said Azuba is the owner of, and in actual possession of, said land as her homestead; sets forth the tax proceedings, and alleges that. through her mental incompetency, Azuba neglected to appeal from the decree rendered in that case; alleges, on information and belief, that after said decree was rendered her solicitor endeavored to persuade her to pay the taxes so declared to be legal; that, on account of her mental incompetency, she took no further steps either to pay or further contest the validity of the tax, and allowed the premises to be sold. The petitioner then alleges certain irregularities in the tax proceedings, and that Azuba was incapable of realizing the sit80 N.W.-1 uation, and not responsible mentally or legally for her acts therein. The petitioner offers to pay the tax, interest, charges, and costs of the suits heretofore had in said matter. To this petition a demurrer was interposed and sustained. From this order defendant ap peals. Willis Baldwin and Landon & Lockwood, for appellant. Randall & Corbin and A. B. Bragdon, for appellées. GRANT, C. J. (after stating the facts). Practically, this is an application to redeem from a tax sale nearly six years after the sale was made and five years after the time for redemption had expired. The statute of 1889 governing this case makes no exception in the case of those under disability, such as coverture, infancy, insanity, and incompetency. It is insisted on behalf of relator "that the property of an incompetent person or infant cannot be taken without the appointment of a guardian ad litem or some person to act for him." This is not the rule in tax proceedings, unless the fact that the law now provides for proceedings in chancery, and decree and sale thereunder, has changed it, and made such proceeding subject to the same rules and procedure as other suits, where jurisdiction of the person must be obtained, like those cited in the brief of petitioner. Proceedings to collect taxes are usually proceedings in rem. The fact that the statute authorizes these proceedings to be taken in a court of equity does not make them any the less proceedings in rem. The property alone is described in the petition. Every one knows that his land is subject to taxation. Every one is presumed to know the law. If he fails to pay, he must be held to know that proceedings will be taken to enforce these taxes against his land, and not against him personally. If not paid, he knows that his property will be advertised and sold under a decree in chancery, without reference or further notice to the owner of the land, or to the person against whom it is or may be assessed. Courts cannot read into revenue laws extensions of time to redeem, exceptions, etc., not found in the law. When the law provides for the sale of all delin |