HODGDON ». BUELEIGH.' 129 �t �And the supreme court of Maine, in Tolman 7. Hobhs, 68 Maine, 316, say: "It is claimed that the land in dispute was forfeited to the state for non-payment of taxes, and then sold by the state to the demandant. The proceedings creating such a forfaiture and sale are to be strictly construed." �In that case the tax title was defeated because it did not appear that the treasurer complied with the law regulating the publication of the list of lands to be sold. �This decision fully sustains the conclusions at which the court bas arrived in the present case. By chapter 6 of Eevised Statutes, which were in force when the proceedings in that case took place, the land became forfeited to the state if the taxes were not paid within two years of the assessment, and when forfeited the treasurer was required to sell the same, after giving the notices prescribed. Chapter 172 of act of 1852 is found to be substantially re-enacted by section 58, c. 6, Eev. St. By this decision an owner of land, after the alleged forfeiture was incurred, and the land sold by the treasurer, was declared as still having an interest in the estate; that he could stand upon and claim the properfcy, unless the purchaser proved a full compliance with the tax acts, and there was nothing in the act of 1852, or section 58, of c. 6, which debarred him from relying on his former title. �On page 23 of the argument for the demandant it is admitted that he must, in an action like the present, rely on his own title, and in the opinion of the court it is fatally defective in many respects. �Judgment for tenants for ail the lots not disclaimed by thera, with costs. �v.4,no.2— 9 ����
