In most states summary methods of proceeding exist for the sale of lands for unpaid taxes which authorize the proper officers to advertise the land for sale and sell it after a certain period of delinquency. Such proceedings are constitutional, though no actual notice of the sale is brought home to the owner.651 When a public officer sells lands for taxes, he has only a naked power; that is, one not coupled with an interest. Therefore his authority, which comes entirely from the statute, must be strictly followed.652 In fact, the requirements have in some states been made so stringent as to make tax titles in all cases of very doubtful validity.653 The modern tendency, however, is the other way, and a reasonable compliance with the statute is sufficient.654 In all cases of sales of land for taxes by summary proceedings it should be remembered, however, that the proceeding is in itself ex parte, and no necessary steps must be omitted, or the title will fail. Therefore payment of the taxes takes away the power to sell,655 and tender of payment has the same effect, if the payment or tender is made by one entitled to pay the taxes.656 The following

649 Garner v. Anderson, 27 La. Ann. 338; Morrison v. Larkin, 26 La. Ann. 699; Hall v. Hall, 23 La. Ann. 135.

650 Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. 326; Schenk v. Peay, 1 Dill. 267, Fed. Cas. No. 12,451.

651 Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 6 Sup. Ct 57.

652 Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 107; Cahoon v. Coe, 57 N. H. 556; Mll-likan v. Patterson, 91 Ind. 515.

653 Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589; Wilsons v. Doe, 7 Leigh (Va.) 22; Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me. 359.

654 Jenkinson v. Auditor General (Mich.) 62 N. W. 163; Mosely v. Roily, 126 Mo. 124, 28 S. W. 895; Bedgood v. Mclain, 94 Ga. 283, 21 S. E. 529; Stieff v. Hartwell, 35 Fla. 606, 17 South. 899; Henderson v. Ellernian, 47 La. Ann. 306, 16 South. 821.

655 Reading v. Finney, 73 Pa. St. 467; Joslyn v. Rockwell, 128 N. Y. 334, 28 N. E. 604; Jackson v. Morse, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 441; Rayner v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384; Sprague v. Coenon, 30 Wis. 209.

656 Tacey v. Irwin, 18 Wall. 549; Schenk v. Peay, 1 Dill. 267, Fed. Cas. No. 12,451; Loomis v. Pingree, 43 Me. 299.

492 title. (Ch. 16general rule is given by Mr. Black 657 for determining when there has been a sufficient compliance with the statute: "When the statute under which the land is sold for taxes directs an act to be done, or prescribes the form, time, and manner of doing an act, such an act must be done in the form, time, and manner prescribed, or the title is invalid, and in this respect the statute must be strictly, if not literally, complied with. But in determining what is required to be done, the statute must receive a reasonable construction; and when no particular form or manner of doing an act is prescribed, any mode which effects the object with reasonable certainty is sufficient. But special stress should always be laid upon those provisions which are designed for the protection of the taxpayer."