
    BARRY'S LESSEE vs. RHEA ET ALS.
    
    The plaintiff claimed under a collectors deed for taxes ; the record produced shewing the judgment of the court, upon which execution issued, stated the transaction nearly thus “it appears (said the clerk) from the records of the court, thatthe court upon the report of the collector, of the public taxes, ordered certain tracts of land to be sold for the taxes, among which were two tracts in the name of the person as whose property the lessor of the plaintiff purchased one.’’
    
      The certificate of a clerk containing an historical statement of the proceedings had in courtis not evidence; he should certify a copy of the record. It is sufficient for a purchaser of land sold for taxes, to shew such part of the proceedings as the law requires to beof record, the rest are presumed to have been regular.
    Dickenson for the defendant
    took several objections to the reading of this record.
    1st. The statement by the clerk is merely historical; he should have given a copy.
    2d. Copies of the report of the sheriff and order of court, for advertising the land should be shewn.
    Stewart, Sharp, and Whiteside, for the plaintiff,
    insisted that as between the purchaser of land and third persons, the court will not examine the regularity of the proceedings previous to judgment. It is only necessary to shew the judgment and execution. But the proceedings were regular, for the clerk was not bound to give an exact copy shewing every persons lands, that were ordered to be sold by the same order. It is only necessary to shew what is of record. The course of rendering lands liable to taxation is this. Commissioners are appointed by the county courts for taking lists in each captains company, at the last court in the year preceding the one for which the taxes are to be collected. After notice they take lists of every person, and report what property they can find, for which lists are not given in. Should these commissioners omit to report to the county court, such omitted property, may be reported by the respective sheriffs. Those who fail to return lists are liable to a double tax.—The clerk of the county, in which the land or property is situated, after the time allowed for returning lists, and making reports, is to make out for the use of the sheriff, or collecting officer a consolidated list from the returns of the different justices ; their report and the sheriffs shewing the amount of taxes of each person, which, says the law, is to be a lien on the property for the state tax. The collectors in each county, collect the taxes of that county, both for state and county purposes. If the collecting officer usually the sheriff, shall not find any personal property, on which he can distrain for the taxes, and there is real property to which he can resort, he shall report all such cases to the county court, who shall cause it to be advertised in a Gazette, published within the district wherein the land lies, if there be one, if not, the nearest, and also in the Gazette of the public printer, stating the taxes due, and setting forth, that the same will be sold for taxes. After this the court enters up judgment, and execution issues, as in other cases ; advertising the lands for sale in the same papers, as in other cases of selling lands under execution the collecting officer make a deed. The law does not require a report to be recorded, it is only evidence to the court. All that we are bound to shew, is, that it was ordered to be advertised, the judgment, execution, and sheriffs deed ; even taking these as the proceedings of a court of limited jurisdiction, and that it ought to appear upon what ground the court acted, which is not admitted, we have shewn enough. But we are not bound to shew the evidence on which the court decided.
    Dickenson, in reply,
    The court are not to anticipate what defence can be set up. Sales for taxes are strictly looked into ; it was so said in relation to sales under the direct tax in the Federal court and the court there said, it would see that the powers given to officers, had been pursued. Suppose the taxes had been paid, the whole proceedings would be void. The record ought to shew that the taxes were not paid.
    It is true that in 2 Hay. 80. the judges were divided, whether it were necessary to shew a judgment upon a sheriffs sale. In this state however it has always been thought necessary.
    
      
      This statement of proceedings in the sale of property for taxes, is a correct general description, but by the act of 1807 c. 21, some alterations have taken place, among which it is enacted, that if any person shall have failed to give in his list on oath he may do it before the first day of May, in the year for which the taxes were to be paid to the clerk of the county. If neither is done, a double tax is incurred. It makes it the duty of the collecting officer at the first court, after the first day of January,(in the year succeeding that in which the tax was payable) to report to the court all such lands for which the taxes were not paid ; and such as he had discovered not to have been given in, the preceding year. After recording the report, the court enters up the judgment for the double tax, and it is directed to be advertised in some newspaper at Nashville and Knoxville, or in the district where the land lies, twice, at least three months before the day of sale, which in every county shall be on the first Monday of July,(November now)and succeeding day,at the court house ; and no sale of lands shall take place until the year succeeding that for which the tax shall be owing. After sale the owner is allowed twelve months from thence to redeem by paying the charges and one hundred percent there-on.
    
   Powel J.

We cannot receive, this record. The clerk should have certified a copy. An historical statement of the record is not sufficient.

Humphreys J. and Overton J.

It is necessary for purchasers to shew a judgment as well as execution ; though the return of an execution need not be shewn. All that can be required of the lessor of the plaintiff is to shew what the law required to be recorded. We presume every thing else to have been regular, unless evidence be offered on the other side to remove this presumption. The law did not require the report to be recorded as evidence, it was not therefore necessary. The law does not require any greater strictness in the decisions of the courts with respect to claims under sales for taxes, than those under ordinary executions. In either case we must look to the principles of law, and no further. We agree with judge Powel that the record is not sufficient. Non suit, which was however set aside upon payment of costs. 
      
       See Addis. Rep. 186. 3 Mass.Rep. 379. 1 Tyler's Rep. 286. 2 Tyler's Rep. 446. 2 Bay. 445.
     