NAXE. Burial rights.. L'Etourneau v. Henquenet.. ........ Vendor and purch'r. 3 Wash. 213.... 25 Long v. Kansas City Stock-yards Vendor and purch'r. 107 Mo. 298..... 413 Meeker v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co. Railroads......... 21 Or. 513...... 758 Miller v. McCarty................ { Marshaling securities.47 Minn. 321 ....... 375 Mississinewa Mining Co. v. Patton. Gas companies.....129 Ind. 472..... 203 Montgomery v. Pacific Coast Vendor and purch'r. 94 Cal. 284............ Munro v. Long..... Vendor and purch'r. 35 S. C. 354 .... 851 New York Rubber Co. v. Rothery. Watercourses...... 132 N. Y. 293.... 575 .Boundaries..... 133 N. Y. 227.... 628 Richmond v. Dudley SUBJECT. .Animals...................... REPORT. 3 Wash. 434 PAGE. 426 ... 50 NAME. Richardson v. De Giverville ...... Married women....107 Mo. 422. Mun. corporations..129 Ind. 112............... 180 Ripple v. Lackawanna County....Elections..........146 Pa. St. 529 .. 814 Riverdale Park Co. v. Westcott... Easements. 74 Md. 311..... 249 Robinson v. Marino....... Rumsey v. New York etc. R'y Co. Watercourses......133 N. Y. 79..... 600 Russell v. Merchants' Bank.......Co-tenancy.......... 47 Minn. 286 Samuels v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co. Damages... .... 35 S. C. 493.... 883 Schild v. Central Park etc. R. R. Railroads.........133 N. Y. 446.... 658 Co....... Scott v. Fisher...... ......... ..............Suretyship........110 N. C. 311.. ... ..... 368 688 Scottish etc. Mortgage Co. v. Deas. Husband and wife.. 35 S. C. 42. 832 Shellenberger v. Ransom.... 31 Neb. 61 129 Ind. 523..... 206 21 Or. 35....... 727 ..Elections....... 74 Md. 326 ..... ....... 255 Judicial sales...... 94 Cal. 217................ 115 .... ..... 440 Officer's return.....107 Mo. 573. ....... .... Appeal............146 Pa. St. 504 .. 715 806 132 .Payment............................ 94 Cal. 362. . . . . . Sullivan v. Hannibal etc. R. R. Co. Master and servant.107 Mo. 66...... 388 Tacoma Hotel Co. v. Tacoma Land etc. Co....... Talbot v. Kuhn................... Water companies... 3 Wash. 316.... 35 Justice of the peace. 89 Mich. 30.... 273 Tobin v. Western U. Tel. Co...... Tel. companies.....146 Pa. St. 375.. 802 .... Van De Vere v. Kansas City......Nuisance..........107 Mo. 83...... 396 ..Fraud. conveyances. 3 Wash. 500.... 50 Walsh v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.....Insurance...... .133 N. Y. 408.... 651 Washington Savings Bank v. Butchers' etc. Bank..... TAX DEED-PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY-BURDEN OF PROOF. - Where the statute makes a tax deed presumptive evidence of the regularity of all prior proceedings, the burden of showing irregularities is upon the owner, in an action by the holder of the deed for the possession and to quiet title; but when it is shown that the original assessment roll upon which such deed is based is not in the office of its proper custodian, such presumption is overthrown, and the burden of proof shifts to the holder of the deed to explain the absence of the assessment roll. TAX DEED. — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS cannot be invoked by the holder of a void tax deed. ACTION by the grantor of a purchaser at tax sale to obtain possession of and quiet title to certain lots in the city of Seattle. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Ronald and Piles, for the appellant. Stott, Boise, and Stott, and Crockett, Brown, and Fortson, for the respondents. DUNBAR, J. The judgment in this action was based on the following facts found by the court: 1. That the original assessment roll for the year 1875 is not in the office of the county auditor of King County, and there is no testimony offered to explain the absence of said original assessment roll; 2. That there is no record. or evidence showing that the sheriff demanded payment of the persons chargeable in the transcript certified to him by the county auditor. At common law, the burden of proof, as between the owner and purchaser, is upon the tax purchaser to show that all the AM. ST. REP., VOL. XXVIIL —2 17 |