A fruitful source of defects in real estate titles are outstanding tax deeds and certificates. Unless there has been irregularities in the tax sale or in levying the tax relied upon by the plaintiff the owner of the land as a condition precedent to a decree quieting his title will be required to reimburse the holder of the tax deed for the amount of the tax together with interest from the date of such deed "under the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity."17 And if the invalidity of the sale is relied upon, the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove wherein the invalidity of the tax proceedings lies.18

17. Legg v. Brower, 212 Mich. 403. In Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wood, 115 Mich. 454, the court said:

"If, as in the present case, the taxpayer petitions the court in chancery in the auditor-general's proceedings to foreclose a lien, the court will compel him to do equity. If the taxpayer is in possession, and files a bill to remove a cloud from the title, the court may then com pel him to do equity."

In Axtec Copper Co. v. Auditor General, 128 Mich. p. 620:

"The petitioner did not offer in its petition, nor during the progress of the trial in the court below, to reimburse the respondents for the amount paid by them to the state at the time of their purchase, and the decrees rendered by the court below did not require this to be done. In Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wood, 115 Mich, at p. 454, it is said, in a like case to this: 'If, as in the present case, the taxpayer petitions the court in chancery in the auditor-general's proceedings, the court will compel him to do equity.' See also, Jenkinson v. Auditor-General, 104 Mich. 34: McGinley v. Mining Co., 121 Mich.

88. In his supplemental brief in this court, counsel offers to pay the respondents the amount paid by them at the time of their purchase, with interest, if the court deem it equitable and right. We think the petitioner ought to be required to do this before the decrees are vacated and when it is done, that the decrees should be vacated."

To the same effect is Horton v. Sailing, 155 Mich. 506.

In Morrison v. Semer, 164 Mich. 211, the court said:

"There having been no evidence offered, however, in support of the charge of the bill of complaint showing the invalidity of the taxes for those yeras, the court held that in accordance with the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity, and this being a bill of complaint to quiet title, the complainants should be required to repay these taxes as a condition of relief, citing Croskery v. Busch, 116 Mich. 289."

In Vandervelde v. Wilson, 176 Mich. 191, "He who asks equity must do equity."

18. Morrison v. Semer, 164 Mich. 208.

Where the purchaser of a tax title went into possession without serving the statutory notices to redeem, he was not entitled to compensation for improvements made or taxes paid while he was in wrongful possession.19

Where payments are made upon tax titles which are void, they will be deemed voluntary and recovery will not be permitted in a direct action brought for that purpose,20 but on a bill to quiet title payment of the tax and interest will be required of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to granting relief.

In a case where the auditor general of the state has refused to issue a deed where the plaintiff had tendered to him the correct amount of unpaid tax necessary to redeem the property, he is a proper party in an action to quiet the title, and this is true even where the auditor general has sold the property, but through irregularities in the sale, the same is void.21

One claiming to be the absolute owner of lands under a tax title cannot lay the foundation for a suit to quiet title against the former owner by alleging a demand upon and a refusal to disclaim any interest in the property by such former owner.22