
    The Pejepscut Proprietors versus Thomas Ransom
    Of the sale of non-residents’ lands for the payment of taxes.
    [Where the question was, whether the officer who sold the lands was duly chosen and qualified, and whether he acted by virtue of assessments duly made, and whether due notice was given, held, that, after the lapse of thirty years, they might lawfully presume that all was done according to law. — Ed.]
    In this action, the said proprietors demand one hundred acres .of land in Brunswick, counting upon their own seisin within thirty years, and upon a disseisin by the tenant.
    A trial was had upon the general issue, before Thatcher, J., October term, 1815. The tenant admitted the original right of the demandants to the land in question, but claimed to hold the same under a deed from one Ephraim Hunt, as collector or con stable of Brunswick, for taxes assessed on the same as land of non resident proprietors ; and he produced the deed of said Hunt to
    
      Samuel Thompson, dated the 8th of May, 1780, purporting to convey “ 1700 acres of undivided * land, 100 acres claimed by Samuel Cothran, and 936 acres belonging to the heirs of Hannah Fayer weather ^ all which lands are stated in the deed to have been assessed in the sum of £368 12s 4cZ., and for the non-payment of the said sum, to have been sold to said Thompson, at public auction, according to law, for the sum of £479 5s. 6d., being the amount of the taxes and intervening charges, and he being the highest bidder. The tenant also proved that the demanded premises were parcel of the said 1700 acres, and that the said Thompso?i entered upon the said 1700 acres soon after the said conveyance, and exercised acts of ownership thereon.
    The tenant also gave in evidence the copy of a record of the town of Brunswick, showing that Hunt was, at a town meeting nolden May 4, 1779, chosen and sworn as constable for the year 1779. The tax bills of the town, signed by certain persons as assessors, were produced, by which it appeared that the three several parcels of land mentioned in said deed were separately valued ind assessed; and it also appeared that they were bid off in several pts at the auction. There was some evidence which went to show a want of conformity to the requirements of the law as to the adver tisements prior to the sale.
    The demandants insisted that the tenant, to establish the validity of the said deed from Hunt to Thompson, should be holden to prove that the said Hunt had been duly chosen into office at a legal town meeting, duly called for that purpose, and that he acted by virtue of assessments committed to him by assessors, also duly chosen at a .egal town meeting for the purpose. But the judge who sat at the trial ruled that, as the copy of the record of the choice of Hunt had been produced, together with the bills committed to him to collect, s it might be presumed that all the other prerequisites for giving him authority were complied with.
    1 The demandants also insisted that the said deed of Hunt must be inoperative, inasmuch as the three tracts of land mentioned therein were taxed separately in the * tax bills, and were sold separately at the auction, but were nevertheless in the said deed alleged to have been put up for sale, and to have been sold, for one sum in gross, including the taxes and charges of sale on all the said parcels; so that the proprietor of each parcel could not have ascertained therefrom what part of the consideration stated in the deed it would be his duty to tender, in order to redeem his land. But this point was likewise overruled by the judge.
    
      The demandants further insisted that the said deed was inoperative for want of a sufficient description of the land intended to oe conveyed, and because there was no tract of 1700 acres taxed in the said tax bills. But the judge also overruled this objection; because there was in said bills a tract of 1708 acres taxed, which should be presumed to be the same tract, which in the deed is called 1700 acres.
    A verdict being returned for the tenant, the demandants filed exceptions to the said opinions of the judge, which were argued at the last May term in this county, by Whitman for the demandants, and Orr for the tenant.
    At this term, the Chief Justice stated that, since the last term, the five justices of the Court had conferred on this action, and were all of opinion that, as to the regularity of the choice of the assessors and constable, and of the proceedings of the assessors, and of the constable, before the sale, as to the notifications, &c., it was proper to leave the evidence to .the jury, with instructions that they might lawfully presume that all things were done according to law, especially as more than thirty years had elapsed between those transactions and the commencement of this suit.
    It was also said by the Chief Justice, that the Court saw no objection to the joining of several tracts of land, sold for several taxes and belonging to several proprietors, in the same deed. The inconveniences suggested, of the difficulty to the individual proprietor in ascertaining the proportion of the consideration necessary to be advanced by him, in order to redeem his *land, was more imaginary than real; for the assessment lists and tax bills are deposited with the town clerk, and each proprietor may know how much his land is held' for. With respect to the.proportion of the expenses, a tender of a proportion, according to the number of lots sold, would be sufficient. The description of the land in the deed was sufficient.
   Per Curiam.

Judgment on the verdict.  