TAXES-Continued.

ever the taxing power seeks to impose a tax upon such prop-
erty it must be able to point to legislative or constitutional
authority. Id.

7. The right to a hearing by the assessor, sitting as a board of
review, as provided by a village charter, is one of which a
tax-payer cannot be lawfully deprived. Common Council v.
Smith, 507.

8. The action of a village assessor, sitting as a board of
review, on the last of the review days, in determining, fix-
ing, and entering for the first time the amount of personal
property for which a tax-payer is assessed, is a departure in
a substantial matter from the provisions of the charter,
which requires the assessor, after completing his assessment
roll and valuation of real and personal property, to give
notice of the time and place for reviewing the same, and,
on sufficient cause being shown upon oath to his satisfaction,
to reduce such valuation. Id.

9. The tax-payer will not be held to have waived this stat-
utory right by reason of a conversation had with the assess-
or at the time of the assessment of his real estate, in which
the matter of the assessment of personal property was dis-
cussed but not determined, and the tax-payer notified of the
time and place of review. Id.

10. The provisions of the general tax law making it applicable
to villages when not inconsistent with their charters, and
providing for the addition to the assessment roll by the board
of review, during its first meeting, of personal property and
real estate omitted from said roll, cannot be invoked to val-
idate the action of the assessor of a village in making such
addition of personal property on the last review day, where
the charter, unlike the general tax law, does not provide for
a second meeting of the board of review. Id.

11. An action will not lie to recover drain taxes paid under
protest on the ground of the failure to file in the office of
the county clerk the record relating to the construction of
the drain, as required by 3 How. Stat. SS 1740a9, 1740b.
Matrau v. Tompkins, 528.

12. In an action of ejectment involving the validity of a deed
issued by the Auditor General on a sale of land for the
taxes of 1887, the tax roll and return of the township treas-

TAXES-Continued.

urer are not admissible for the purpose of showing the in-
validity of the tax. Watts v. Bublitz, 586.

13. The fact that neither the notice nor the affidavit of publi-
cation shows affirmatively that the Auditor General desig-
nated the paper in which the tax petition was published as
the paper in which it should be published cannot be urged
as an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, as the stat-
ute does not require that any statement of such designation
shall appear in said notice or affidavit; and when the tax
petition is signed by the Auditor General, it will be pre-
sumed that he authorized the publication in the paper in
which it appeared. Id. 587.

14. If the proceedings to foreclose the tax liens show upon their

face want of jurisdiction, the deeds issued thereunder are
void; but the jurisdiction cannot be attacked by evidence de
hors the record. Id.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (11); EJECTMENT (3); notes, 157, 254.

TENDER.

The payment of a portion, only, of a debt, when the debtor
is bound to pay the whole, furnishes no consideration for a
promise by the creditor to discharge the debtor, and the
creditor need not, before bringing suit for the remainder of
the debt, tender back the amount received, and thus repu-
diate the settlement. Leeson v. Anderson, 247.

TORTS-See COUNTIES.

TRESPASS-See DEED (4); note, 415.

TRIAL-See PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT COURT.

TRUSTS-See EQUITY JURISDICTION (1); FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES;
PARTNERSHIP (2, 3).

USER-See HIGHWAYS (5, 8).

VENUE.

The recorder's court of the city of Detroit can take judicial
notice that the city of Detroit is within the county of
Wayne. People v. Curley, 238.

WAIVER-See CRIMINAL LAW (6); EVIDENCE (27); EXEMPTION;
TAXES (9).

WARDEN OF THE STATE HOUSE OF CORRECTION-See CON-
STITUTIONAL LAW (9); QUO Warranto (4-6).

WARRANTY-See SALE (1-3, 6-9).

WILL.

1. Where a husband devises all of his real estate to his wife,
to be used for her support and maintenance during her
natural life, and directs that, if the rents and profits arising
therefrom shall prove insufficient for such support and main-
tenance, she may, under the direction of the judge of pro-
bate of the proper county, sell and convey so much of the
land as shall be sufficient therefor, and that, if any of the
real estate remains unsold at the death of the wife, it shall
be divided equally among the testator's heirs, a sale by the
widow without the direction of the judge of probate will be
treated as void. Bates v. Leonard, 296.

2. An intimate acquaintance of five years with a testatrix,
terminating six years before she made her will, and frequent
conversations with her during that period about her children,
her life, and the hardships she had gone through, do not
render the witness testifying to such facts competent to
express an opinion as to the competency of the testatrix to
make the will. Buys v. Buys, 354.

97

33 1889, Act 310 (Local).
406 1889, Act 380 (Local).
407 1891, Act 140, § 13......
219 1891, Act 188.

406

1879, Act 381 (Local).
1881, Act 314 (Local)...
1891, Act 190..544, 545, 548, 558, 566
1883, Act 124, §§ 15, 24..444, 445 1893, Pages 69, 70 (Local).. 456
1883, Act 281 (Local)..
445 1893, Act 50..
-60-63 1893, Act 118.
408 1893, Act 148.
.540, 559 1893, Act 185.

1885, Act 135..

1885, Act 381 (Local).

1887, Act 208.

1887, Act 229.

97

-383, 385, 388

152

125

1887, Act 278.