At the time of the sale the purchaser is given a certificate of purchase. The statutes usually provide that the rights of a purchaser under a certificate may be assigned.662 Until the period of redemption expires, the owner is entitled to the possession of the land and to its profits.663 In most states the holder of a certificate of purchase is entitled to a deed on the expiration of the period of redemption,664 but in some states a foreclosure of the right of redemption is necessary.665 The tax deed, when issued, must contain all the elements required by the statute, and show by its recitals a complete performance of all that is required by law, before a sale is lawful: such as authority,666 assessment, and delinquency.667 There must also be a description of the lands sold.668 If any of these things are wanting, the deed cannot be reformed in equity.669
Estate Taken by Purchaser.
In many states a new title is created by a tax sale, and all con tingent rights in the land are cut off, though, when this is the rule, a remainder-man, and others having contingent interests, are given an opportunity to redeem from the sale.670 If those having such interest do not redeem, they lose their rights. This extends even to the rights to dower671 and homestead.672 In other states the tax deed passes only the interest of the person assessed.673 Even where this rule obtains, the rights of mortgagees will be lost if the land is sold for taxes,674 and in the same way judgment liens and other rights growing out of and depending on the estate of the one owing the taxes are cut off.675
N. Y. 335, 38 N. E. 300; Douglass v. Mckeever, 54 Kan. 767, 39 Pac. 703; Rich v. Braxton, 158 U. S. 375, 15 Sup. Ct 1006; Stone v. Stone, 103 Mass. 474, 40 N. E. 897.
662 An assignment in the absence of such a statutory authorization would probably be void. Billings v. Mcdermott, 15 Fla. 60; Sapp v. Mori-ill, 8 Kan. 677.
663 Elliott v. Parker, 72 Iowa, 746, 32 N. W. 494; Mayo v. Woods, 31 Cal. 269.
664 Wettig v. Bowman, 39 111. 416. Cf. Ives v. Lynn, 7 Conn. 505.
665 Black, Tax Titles (2d Ed.) § 383; Alexander v. Thacker, 43 Neb. 494, 61 N. W. 738.
666 Cogel v. Raph, 24 Minn. 194; Madland v. Benland, Id. 372; Atkison v. Improvement Co., 125 Mo. 565, 28 S. W. 861; Ward v. Montgomery, 57 Ind. 276.
667 Gilflllan v. Chatterton, 38 Minn. 335. 37 N. W. 583; Hubbard v. Johnson, 9 Kan. 632.
668 Campbell v. Packard, 61 Wis. 88, 20 N. W. 672; Ellsworth v. Nelson, 81 Iowa, 57, 46 N. W. 740. For descriptions held sufficient, see Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486; Taylor v. Wright, 121 111. 455, 13 N. E. 529; Harris v. Curran, 32 Kan. 5S0, 4 Pac. 1044; Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391, 17 South. 635.
669 Altes v. Hinckler, 36 111. 265; Keepfer v. Force, 86 Ind. 81; Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596. Contra, Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505.
291. Under the right of eminent domain, land belonging to private persons may be taken for public uses upon compensation being made. The right may be exercised
(a) By the United States or the states.
(b) By private persons or corporations duly authorized.
The taking of land under the right of eminent domain differs from taxation in that compensation is provided to the owner when his land is taken under the former. Land can be taken under this power only for public uses. This, however, is a question of constitutional law.676 As to what constitutes a taking, and as to what will be an additional burden imposed on land taken under this power, as by putting a railway on lands previously taken for a highway, the same reference must be made. Power to condemn lands under the right of eminent
670 Atkins v. Hinman, 7 111. 437; Kunes v. Mccloskey, 115 Pa. St. 461, 9 Atl. 83; Langley v. Chapin, 134 Mass. 82; Jackson v. Babcock, 16 N. Y. 246.
671 Black, Tax Titles, § 422. But that the wife must be made a party to a tax suit, see Blevins v. Smith, 104 Mo. 583, 16 S. W. 213.
672 Shell v. Duncan, 31 S. C. 547, 10 S. E. 330.
673 Cross v. Taylor (Ga.) 6 S. E. 179; Dyer v. Bank, 14 Ala. 622.
674 Parker v. Baxter, 2 Gray (Mass.) 185; Becker v. Howard, 66 N. Y. 5; Fager v. Campbell, 5 Watts (Pa.) 287.
675 Jenkins v. Newman. 122 Ind. 99, 23 N. E. 683. But, if the land is redeemed by the owner, the judgment lien is not affected. Appeal of Singer (Pa. Sup.) 7 Atl. 800. The lien of prior taxes is also divested by a tax sale. Huzzard v. Trego, 35 Pa. St. 9; Law v. People, 116 111. 244, 4 N. E. 845.
676 See Black, Const. Law, 355.
§ 291) domain may be, and often is, delegated either to private persons or to corporations, though, it is usually said that such persons or corporations must perform some public function.677 The provisions in the federal and state constitutions prohibiting the taking of a person's property without due compensation cover cases of eminent domain.678 Damages in such cases are in some states assessed by commissioners and in others by juries. It is generally provided that the compensation must be made before the land is actually taken. Any property is subject to the exercise of this right, even including franchises.679 The United States may condemn lands belonging to a state as well as if owned by private persons.680 But when the United States or a state take land under this right, they must make compensation, the same as other persons.681
677 Beekman v. Railroad Co., 3 Paige (N. Y.) 45; Weir t. Railroad Co.. 18 Minn. 155 (Gil. 139); In re Theresa Drainage Dist., 90 Wis. 301, 63 N. W. 288; Secombe v. Railroad Co., 23 Wall. 108; U. S. v. Certain Tract of Land, 67 Fed. 869; Jockheck v. Commissioners, 53 Kan. 780, 37 Pae. 621.
678 Black, Const Law, 366.
679 Central Bridge Corp. v. Lowell, 4 Gray (Mass.) 474; Com. v. Canal Co., 66 Pa. St. 41; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507.
680 Stockton v. Railroad Co., 32 Fed. 9. A state may condemn property of the United States. U. S. v. Railroad Bridge Co., 6 Mclean, 517, Fed. Cas." No. 16,114; U. S. v. Chicago, 7 How. 185.
681 For statutory provisions on eminent domain, see, in general, 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, (S 1140-1144.