Statement of the Case.

deputy, there in his office, as one more familiar with the lands in the county than any one else, and requested defendant's agent to make himself at home and use Miller until he got everything straight. In comparing the tax receipts of previous years with the tax receipt then in his possession, said agent noticed the discrepancy in the acreage of lots 2, 3, and 4, and called Miller's attention to it. Miller said he would see about it, stepped to the corner of the room and got the township maps, footed up the acreage of lots 2, 3, and 4, and found it 182 acres. Defendant's agent asked him how he accounted for the acreage, and he replied, Withers had been paying for years on land in the Mississippi River, but added, referring to the maps, these are the latest surveys and are, I suppose,

correct.

"Defendant's agent then looked at the map and saw lots 5 and 6 thereon, and asked, Who do lots 5 and 6 belong to? Miller replied, I don't think they belong to Withers. Said agent replied, they are very close to Withers' land, and Miller answered, he did not think they were ever assessed to Withers, and did not know whether they belonged to him or not. Said agent was doubtful about it; went back; made a thorough examination of Withers' muniments of title to see if lots 5 and 6 belonged to him. It was the first time he had ever heard of said lots 5 and 6, and he had no knowledge of the discrepancy nor of the map beyond the fact that said Miller told him it was the latest survey of the particular tract. When he saw a survey of lots 5 and 6, and could find no such lots in defendant's muniments of title, he concluded the land did not belong to Withers, but that they were water lots that belonged to no one, and that there was no land there. Said agent was then and there ready and willing to pay the taxes on lots 5 and 6, but he did not tender the money for the taxes and demand a tax receipt as prescribed by law, because he did not think the lands belonged to Withers. He first ascertained his mistake when this suit was brought."

In addition, it may be noticed that the list of lands furnished by the defendant's agent contained over thirty tracts, aggregating several thousand acres.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. W. L. Nugent for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas J. Carson, Mr. S. S. Calhoon, and Mr. Marcellus Green for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

No question is more clearly a matter of local law than one arising under the tax laws. Tax proceedings are carried on by the State for the purpose of collecting its revenue, and the various steps which shall be taken in such proceedings, the force and effect to be given to any act of the taxing officers, the results to follow the non-payment of taxes, and the form and efficacy of the tax deed, are all subjects which the State has power to prescribe, and peculiarly and vitally affecting its well-being. The determination of any questions affecting them is a matter primarily belonging to the courts of the State, and the national tribunals universally follow their rulings except in cases where it is claimed that some right protected by the Federal Constitution has been invaded.

case.

Turning to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, we find in Richter v. Beaumont, 67 Mississippi, 285, 286, a case almost precisely like the one at bar. It is true that the question there presented arose upon the admissibility of testimony, but the views expressed by the court in its opinion, if accepted as controlling, as they must be, are decisive of this In that case there was an old and a new map; an old and a new description. The owner in possession paid according to the old, and in ignorance of the new, intending to pay on all the land that he owned. But by the new map and description the number of lots in the section had been increased, and the tract described by the added number was sold for nonpayment of taxes. The lot thus numbered and sold was a part of the land belonging to him, and upon which he was intending and attempting to pay all the taxes. The court, by Mr. Justice Campbell, thus disposes of the question: "By the ancient division of the town and designation of lots, lot six embraced the parcel of land sued for in this action, which

Opinion of the Court.

parcel is, by the modern map, a part of lot seven. The defendant (appellant) was in 1883, and prior and subsequent thereto, in the actual possession of lot six, and he gave the description of his land to the assessor as lot six, and it was so assessed, he intending and understanding that lot six extended eastward according to the ancient order, so as to include what, by the new map, is part of lot seven. He paid the taxes on lot six, and lot seven, not being paid on, was sold for taxes. It does not appear that the appellant had ever done anything in recognition of the new map, or that he knew that the new map was conformed to by the assessor in assessing lots in Woodville. It may be inferred from the fact of his residence in the town, and the recognition by citizens and officials of the new map, that he was aware of it, and that the assessor was governed by it in assessing. If so, he should not be allowed to defeat the assessment and sale by his secret understanding or purpose. A mental reservation of the owner cannot be permitted to defeat assessment. On the other hand, if, until a recent date, lot six was understood to embrace what, by a new map, is part of lot seven, and the owner and occupant was governed by the former description in giving it in to the assessor, and did not know, and should not have known, that the assessor would deal with it as designated by the new map, he should not lose his land.”

Little need be added to this extract from the opinion in that case. The suggestion there made of a mental reservation is out of this case by the finding of the court. That the owner was not bound, as matter of law, to take notice of the new map is shown by that decision, and if he was not bound to know, and did not in fact know, and paid under a mistake, relying upon the ancient descriptions and the old map, and intended in good faith to pay all his taxes, then clearly, within the scope of that decision, the sale was invalid, and the deed fails. Upon the authority of that case the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

LEWIS v. WILSON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

66

No. 208. Submitted January 17, 1894. — - Decided February 5, 1894.

When a party who has obtained a verdict which the court deems excessive, consents to its reduction, and judgment is thereupon entered for the reduced sum, and the plaintiff receives that sum and acknowledges its receipt in full satisfaction of this judgment," he may not repudiate the whole transaction, and obtain a judgment for the full amount of the verdict, on the ground that the court had no power to disturb the verdict. A plaintiff may, in open court, consent to a reduction of a verdict, and the noting thereof in the journal entry of the judgment is sufficient evidence thereof.

THE facts in this case were as follows: Plaintiff in error, the plaintiff below, brought suit against the defendants to recover damages for libel. At the December (1887) term and on April 9, 1888, a jury returned a verdict in his favor, assessing the damages at $10,000. On April 16, 1888, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive. After the entry of this motion the following appears of record:

"Edward H. Lewis

VS.

Geo. C. Wilson et al.

December Term, 1887. Libel.

"After the rendition of the verdict of the jury in this action and a motion by the defendants for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury were excessive, the court said from the bench that the defendants' motion would be granted unless the plaintiff consents to reduce the verdict from ten to five thousand dollars, as the verdict is clearly excessive if we eliminate all damages which arose out of the claim of the plaintiff for special damages to his business. in Texas, and to which he could lay no claim under the pleading and evidence in this case, and which the court withdrew from the consideration of the jury.

Statement of the Case.

"And the court further said if the plaintiff consents to reduce the verdict to five thousand dollars in pursuance of this suggestion, and the defendants decline to pay the judgment for that amount and desire to prosecute a writ of error to the Supreme Court, then, in that event, judgment will be entered up for the sum of ten thousand dollars upon the verdict of the jury.

"And afterwards, to wit, on the 23d day of April, a.d. 1888, comes the plaintiff, by his attorney, and enters his consent to the reduction of the verdict of the jury to the sum of five thousand dollars.

"And then come the defendants, by their attorney, and submit to pay the said five thousand dollars.

"It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff, Edward H. Lewis, do have and recover from the defendants Geo. C. Wilson, John N. C. Stockton; Mumby, Stockton & Knight, composed of Frank W. Mumby, John N. C. Stockton, and Raymond D. Knight; Wightman and Christopher, composed of William S. Wightman and John G. Christopher; A. W. Owens, Daniel G. Ambler, George F. Drew, J. M. Lee, C. B. Smith, George Hughes, J. M. Barrs, Samuel Barton, F. P. Fleming, J. R. Tysen, C. E. Garner; John N. C. Stockton, trustee; F. W. Hawthorne, C. P. Cooper, J. S. Smith, Jr., James P. Taliaferro, James M. Fairlie, A. W. Cockrell, Charles W. Da Costa, W. B. Young, J. R. Campbell, T. E. Stribling, Roswell H. Mason, B. M. Baer, A. W. Barrs, J. E. T. Bowden, James M. Kreamer, and Telfair Stockton, the sum of five thousand dollars and his costs, taxed at $644.25.

"Comes now the plaintiff, Edward H. Lewis, by H. Bisbee, his attorney, on this the 27th day of April, A.D. 1888, and acknowledges the receipt of five thousand six hundred and fortyfour and 25 in full satisfaction of this judgment.

Thereafter this motion was filed:

“H. BISBEE, Att'y.”