00TOBER TEP?M, 1907. Ar&,um?t ?o? P?ia? ia ERROR TO TH? 8?7PREM?. COURT OF THE 8TAT? OF M?C?GAN. No. I77. Ar?d M?u?h IS, lg(?--Do?iod April 6. Ig?K An owner of property must be held to imowledge that failure to pay duly ? taxe? will be followed by sale; and if the statute ?ive? him full opportunity to be heard a? to the aseem?e?t on definite day?, am[ deft- nitely fixes the time for payment and the time for sale in c?ze of default, ao that he oannot fall, if duly 'd?t, to learn o(the pendency of the sale, he is not denied due pro?ees of law h?cauae the notJoe of sale i. by pubti- eatlon and not by personal servioe; and the validity of a tax ?de under the law of Michigan sustained. facts are stated in the opix?on. Mr. Edward Cabill for plaintiff in error: When notice by statute is relied on to supply the place of process it must contain the'elements of notice and must be definite and certain in all th? essentials of notice as any other legal process. If a statute is deficient in respect to prescribing with certainty the time and place of hearing, the defect can- not he supplied by publication of the notice unless the statute also fixes definitely the time and place when and where the publication shall be made and so furnishes, by reference, a means of certainty. What is required is notice and notice to be of value must po?ess certainty or furnish the means of certainty to the person entitled to it. $tat? R. R. Tax 92 U.S. 575; Davidson v. Board of Administration o! Or/eans, 97 U.S. 108; Hager v. Redamat/on D/str/e2, 111 U.S. 701; C. N. O. & T. P. R. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 115 U.S. 321; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345; P. C..C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. U.S. 526, substantially differ from the case at bar.
�
