OCTOBER TF__,P,,M? 1907. tax upon his property, is entitled to further not/es of. the pen- dency of proceedings to sell the land in sstisfaction of the tax llen, then the statute before us requires a sufficient notice. It is no objection that the notice was only by publication. In the case of Le/gh v. Green, 193 U.S. 79, a case of publication, the authorities were reviewed, and it was said, p. 92: "Where the State seeks directly, or by authorization to others to sell land for taxes upon proceedln? to enforce a lien for the pay- ment thereof, it may proceed directly against the land within the jurisdiction of the Court, and a notice which permits all interested, who are 'so minded,' to ascertain that it is to be subjected to sale to answer for ?axes, and to appear and be heard, whether to be found within ?he jurisdiction or not, is due proce? of law within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Moreover, the case at bar cannot be dis- tinguished from Winona & St. Peter Land Co. v. M9nn?ota, su/wa. There a statute slmil?r to the one now before us was held to afford due process of law. The only distinction sug- gested is that the Minnesota statute fixed more definitely the Michigan statute the time of filing the petition, of maldng the order for hearing, and of the hearing itself. But those times are fixed with sufficient certainty here. The owner of property whose taxes, duly s?essed, have remaind unpaid for more than one year must be held to the knowledge that proceedings for sale are liable to be begun sa soon m practi- cable alter the first day of June, and that the law contemplates that they will be ended before December 1, when the sales will be made by the county' ?reasurer. The proceedin__ge are in- scribed on the PUblic records a?d othervise made notorious. If he exercises due vigilance, he cannot f?il to learn of their pendency, and that full opportunity to defend ,is afforded to him. This satisBes the demands of, due process of law, and the judgment is At?m?
�
