This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ...were matters of public record in the town, and were constructively known to the bank, and the bank had the right and privilege of paying the delinquent taxes, and protecting its title at any time up to January, 1882, when the town took its deed. The fact, that during all the time between the tax sale in May, 1879, and January, 1882, or any part of it, when the land was open to redemption, it was taxed to the bank, whose duty it was to pay the tax. cannot estop the defendant, nor _the town under whom the defendant claims, from asserting a. title, which the bank might have defeated, but did not take the necessary steps to do. So long as the land was open to redemption, neither the town nor its selectmen could know that the bank would not pay the tax, and make its title sure. Having a. right to redeem the land, the bank had such an interest in it that the town, during the existence of such right, might well assess the tax against the bank, and in doing so there would be no estoppel nor waiver of a right on its part to assert a title not before defeated o_r_destroyed by a redemption of the land from a tax sale. The position of the bank, the plaintifl: "s graiitor, was not changed to its in_ui-y or disadvantage by anything which the town did. Even if neither the plaintiff at the time of his purchase, nor the bank at the time of the proceedings in the sale of the land to and by the town, had actual notice of the same, there could be no estoppel against a purchaser at a tax sale, notice of the proceedings as provided by law having been given, and actual notice not having been intentionally or fraudulently withheld. N 0 question is raised by the case upon the effect of want of notice to the bank beyond the bearing of the fact upon the...