
    McGINNIS’ LESSEE, v. WILLEY.
    Tax title — taking judgment — 'Variance—figures and other characters in use in describing Jand.
    The takingjudgment for a less tax than was claimed in the advertisement, will not vitiate the tax title, the judgment of the court for the tax, will cure common discrepancies while unreversed.
    The use of figures, and a brief mode of describing the land in the advertisement, will not affect the title, nor will the use of other signs to describe the land in the deed, than were used in the advertisement. The real question is, was the same land sold and conveyed that was advertised and taxed; not whether the same characters or words are used to describe it.
    Ejectment. The defendant claimed under a tax title, and it was agreed, that the plaintiff had a right to recover unless that title was made out. The tax title was derived under the act of the 30th! January, 1822, 20 O. L. 27, which provided for giving notice of delinquent taxes, and taking a judgment in court for the tax. The following objections were made to the defendant’s title:
    1. That the notice of intention to apply for judgment does not expressly show that the lands were in Muskingum county.
    2. The notice of sale and judgment did not so describe it.
    3. The notice of judgment was for $56 13 and 9 mills; while the judgment and sale were for $52 and 1 mill.
    4. That in the advertisements the land is described in the number of the tract by figures, and the range fyc. by letters, while in the deed this is written out in full.
    
    Adams, for the plaintiff.
    
      Stillwell, contra.
   Hitchcock, J.

We think the advertisements do sufficiently describe the land, and show it as lying in the county. No one reading it could be misled by it, and we see no material difference between the two advertisements. The taking the judgment for less than was claimed in the application vitiates nothing. If there were even a greater discrepancy than is pointed out, the judgment of the court upon it, would take away all objection' on that account, while unreversed. That the brief description of the land in the advertisements and duplicates, gave place to a more explicit and full description in' the deed has no better foundation. The real question is, was the same land sold and conveyed, that was charged and advertised, and not whether the same letters or characters were used to describe it.

Judgment for the defendant.  