Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621; 34 L. Ed. 283. 239 Russell v. Harkness, 118 U. S. 663; 30 L. Ed. 285. 428 500 Ryan v. R. R., 132 Pa. 304 143 S. St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527; 21 L. R. A. 226.. 211 St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Chenault, 12 Pac. (Kan.) 303. 171 St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Valirins, 56 Ind. 512 368 Sack v. Dolese, 35 Ill. App. 636.... 368 Safety I. W. & C. Co. v. Baltimore, 13 C. C. A. 375; 66 Fed. 140, 42 Sanford v. Ass'n, 33 N. Y. Supp. 512 500 San Francisco Gas. Co. v. City of San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453.. 42 Sayward v. Carlson, 1 Wash. St. 29 58 Schuler v. Hogan, 168 Ill. 369 123 Schwallback v. R. R. Co., 69 Wis. 292 247 Seymour v. Cemetery Ass'n, 144 N. Y. 333; 26 L. R. A. 859. Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377; 30 L. Ed. 718. 239 Spurlock v. Miss. Pac. R. Co., 90 Mo. 200.. 196 Stackpole v. Hallahan, 16 Mont. 40; 28 L. R. A. 502. Tacoma Hotel Co. v. Tacoma, L. & W. Co., 3 Wash. St. 316, 14 Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Archibald, 170 U. S. 665; 42 L. Ed. 1188.. 367 Thompson v. Androscoggin Co., 54 N. H. 545 ..... Tuttle v. R. R. Co., 122 U. S. 189; 30 L. Ed. 1114.. 484 Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marburry, 91 U. S. 587; 23 L. Ed. 328.... 198 212 386 .52, 464 197 104 231 U. U. S. v. Elec. Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 668; 40 L. Ed. 576.. 231 Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Daniels, 152 U. S. 684; 38 L. Ed. 597.. 367 Union Stockyards v. Goodwin, 57 Neb. 138 368 V. Van Allen v. Francis, 123 Cal. 474..... 430 Van Horne's Lesror v. Dorrauce, 2 U. S. 304; 1 L. Ed. 391 318 132 Vanderlip v. Grand Rapids, 41 N. W. 677; L. R. A. 247. 211 196 62 W. W. L. Turnpike Co. v. Wickliffe's Adm'r, 100 Ky. 531 Wagner v. City of Rock Island, 146 Ill. 139; 21 L. R. A. 519.. 42 Winona etc. R. Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn, 515. 317 DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH. FEBRUARY TERM, 1904. (Continued from Volume 27.) FRANZ JUNGK, ADOLPH V. WEISE, ADOLPH A. STROHN and HUGO GUIDO REITZENSTEIN, Respondents, v. GRANT SNYDER, Defendant, and P. L. KIMBERLY, Appellant. No. 1542. (78 Pac. 168.) 1. Taxation: Statute: Sale: Validity. Tax sales being made exclusively under statutory authority, the provisions of the statute conferring such authority must be fully complied with, and any substantial departure therefrom, prejudicial to the owner of the property, will invalidate the sale.1 2. Same. Where the statute (Sess. Laws, 1896, chap. 129, p. 423) provides that the name of the owner of the property and his post office address "so far as possible to obtain same from.... county records or otherwise" shall be entered in the assessment book, the failure of the assessor to avail himself of such information, when the same is easily obtainable, and his assessment of such property in the name of “unknown," renders a sale of such property after notice addressed to "unknown," void. 1 Olsen v. Bagley, 10 Utah 492; Eastman v. Gurrey, 15 Utah 410; Asper v. Moon, 24 Utah 241; Moon v. Salt Lake County, 27 Utah 435. 28 Utah-1 (1) Jungk v. Snyder. (Decided April 30, 1904.) Appeal from the Third District Court, Tooele County.-Hon. C. W. Morse, Judge. Action to quiet title to a certain mining claim. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, defendant Kimberly appealed. AFFIRMED. Messrs. Snyder & Wight for appellant.. A. L. Hoppaugh, Esq., for respondents. STATEMENT OF FACTS. This is an action to quiet title to a certain patented mining claim known as the "Henrietta," situated in Ophir mining district, Tooele county, Utah. The evidence shows that deeds were on record prior to the application for a patent showing title in nearly all of the plaintiffs, but the records of the land office show only three of the plaintiffs made entry for a patent, namely, Adolph V. Weise, Adolph A. Strohn, and Hugo Guido Reitzenstein, they being the original locators of the mining claim. A patent was issued in due time to these parties together with the others who had succeeded to a portion of Strohn's interest. The parties who had acquired a part of Strohn's interest deeded such interest in 1892, to plaintiff Jungk. Defendant Grant Snyder, in the joint answer filed by the defendants herein disclaims any interest in or to said premises. Defendant Kimberly claims title by virtue of a tax deed based upon certain tax proceedings originating in Tooele county in the year 1896. While the records of Tooele county, in 1896, and for a long time prior thereto |