Mr. Harris E. Thomas, with whom Mr. Charles W. Nichols was on the brief, for defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Michigan. That court rendered judgment for the defendants in error, who were the original plaintiffs, against the plaintiff in error, who was the original defendant, in an action of ejectment to recover a certain lot of land. The defendant was at one timę the owner of the land in dispute, but it was conveyed to the plaintiffs by a deed given in pursuance of a sale for taxes. The title to the land depends upon the validity of the tax title, which was upheld by the court below. The issue in this court is narrowed to the question whether the sale of the land for the enforcement and collection of the taxes, which it is conceded were duly levied, violated the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The method in Michigan of the assessment and collection. of taxes on real property is as follows: On or before the third Monday in May the Supervisor of the township makes a tax roll, on which each parcel of real property is described, and the name of its owner, if known, set opposite. The Supervisor then estimates the true cash value of the property. On the Tuesday next following the third Monday of May the Supervisor submits his assessment roll to a board of review for correction and approval. On the fourth Monday of May and the day following the board sits, and, at the request of any taxpayer, has the power to correct the assessment on his property. The members of the board have authority to administer the oath and to examine witnesses. The assessment roll is then finally made up and certified. The Supervisor then proceeds to assess taxes in accordance with the assessment roll, and from the first day of December following they become a lien upon the property until payment. Act 206 of the Laws of 1893 provides for

the enforcement and collection of delinquent taxes by sale. All lands, the taxes upon which have remained unpaid for a year after the lands have been returned to the Auditor General or the county treasurers as delinquent, are declared to be subject to sale in satisfaction of the tax lien. The law provides, § 61, that “as soon as practicable after the first day of June the Auditor General shall prepare and file in the office of the County Clerk a petition addressed to the Circuit Court for said county in chancery, stating therein by apt reference to lists or schedules annexed thereto, a description of all lands in such county upon which taxes have remained unpaid for more than one year prior to

.

the

first day of May of the year in which the petition is filed, and the total amount of such taxes. Such petition shall pray a decree in favor of the State of Michigan against said land for the payment of the several amounts so specified therein, and in default thereof that such lands be sold." The petition is then entered in "a substantial record book," with a list of the lands and the taxes upon them. The Circuit Judge thereupon makes an order that the petition will be brought to hearing and decree at a time and place named, at which all persons interested who desire to contest the lien of the State may appear and file their objections, and that in default of appearance a decree as prayed for will be entered. The petition, with the order thereon, must then be published at least once a week for four weeks next prior to the time fixed for hearing, in some newspaper published and circulating in the county to be designated by the Auditor General. If there is no such newspaper, or none such can be secured, the petition and order must be printed and furnished to each voter in the county and copies posted in three public places in each township. The foregoing publication is declared by the law to be "equivalent to a personal service of notice on all persons who are interested in the lands specified in such petition, of the filing thereof, of all proceedings thereon and of the sale of the lands under the decree, and shall give the court jurisdiction"

to proceed to a decree. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken by either party. On the first Monday of December following the county treasurer begins to make the sales decreed by the court, must report them to the clerk of the court, and eight days after the sales are reported to the clerk of the court are given for objections to the sale, which may be set aside as in the practice in cases of sales in equity on the foreclosure of mortgages. The sale is then confirmed, subject to a right of redemption, which may be exercised at any time within one year from the sale. The sale, however, may be set aside within, one year after the owner has notice of the sale, if the taxes have been paid or the property was exempt.

The sale in the case at bar was made after proceedings which, in all respects, conformed to the statute. The single objection made in behalf of the plaintiff in error is that the statute denies to him, then being a resident of the State, the due process of law required by the Constitution, in that it substitutes notice by publication of the proceedings for sale for personal service. It has been shown that the Michigan law provides a board of review, which holds sessions on days fixed by the law, where every person whose property is on the provisional assessment roll submitted by the Supervisor may be heard to correct the assessment. It would seem that this opportunity for hearing, coupled with the provision for setting aside the sale within one year after notice of it, which has been stated, satisfies the requirement of due process of law made by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the State may be left to enforce the collection of the taxes as it chooses. But we pass this question without deciding it, simply observing that in Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U. S. 526, it was said, p. 537, that the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated "if the owner has an opportunity to question the validity or the amount of it either before that amount is determined or in subsequent proceedings for its collection.' If it be assumed that the delinquent taxpayer, who has already had an opportunity to be heard upon the assessment of the VOL. CCIX-27

tax upon his property, is entitled to further notice of the pendency of proceedings to sell the land in satisfaction of the tax lien, then the statute before us requires a sufficient notice. It is no objection that the notice was only by publication. In the case of Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, a case of publication, the authorities were reviewed, and it was said, p. 92: "Where the State seeks directly, or by authorization to others to sell land for taxes upon proceedings to enforce a lien for the payment thereof, it may proceed directly against the land within the jurisdiction of the Court, and a notice which permits all interested, who are 'so minded,' to ascertain that it is to be subjected to sale to answer for taxes, and to appear and be heard, whether to be found within the jurisdiction or not, is due process of law within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Moreover, the case at bar cannot be distinguished from Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. Minnesota, supra. There a statute similar to the one now before us was held to afford due process of law. The only distinction suggested is that the Minnesota statute fixed more definitely than the Michigan statute the time of filing the petition, of making the order for hearing, and of the hearing itself. But those times are fixed with sufficient certainty here. The owner of property whose taxes, duly assessed, have remained unpaid for more than one year must be held to the knowledge that proceedings for sale are liable to be begun as soon as practicable after the first day of June, and that the law contemplates that they will be ended before December 1, when the sales will be made by the county treasurer. The proceedings are inscribed on the public records and otherwise made notorious. If he exercises due vigilance, he cannot fail to learn of their pendency, and that full opportunity to defend is afforded to him. This satisfies the demands of due process of law, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

STICKNEY v. KELSEY, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

ERROR TO THE SURROGATES' COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 196. Submitted March 20, 1908.-Decided April 6, 1908.

A ruling by the highest court of the State sustaining the method of proving the existence of a law of that State presents no Federal question. Where the language of the appellate court is ambiguous, if it may be taken as a declination to pass upon a question not necessary to the decision, this court will not, in order to aid a technical and non-meritorious defense, spell out a Federal question; but it will resolve the ambiguity against the plaintiff in error who is bound, in order to give this court jurisdiction, to clearly show that a Federal right has been impaired. Writ of error to review 185 N. Y. 107, dismissed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward Mitchell for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. David B. Hill for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to a Surrogates' Court of the State of New York. The judgment brought under review was entered in obedience to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of that State. The judgment imposed a transfer tax upon certain real property devised by the will of Joseph Stickney, deceased. The tax was properly assessed if an act purporting to be passed on March 16, 1903, 1 Session Laws of 1903, p. 165, was a duly enacted law of the State. It appears that, by the constitution of the State, laws of the nature of this one require for their due enactment a majority vote in each legislative chamber when three-fifths of the members are present. The presiding officers of both branches of the legislature, in certifying that this bill was duly passed by a majority vote, failed to certify that three-fifths of the members were then present.