¶1 The question is whether the plaintiff, who represents the mortgagee was, entitled to notice of the sale of the land for taxes. The statute is express, that notice shall be given, and the only question is who is the proper person to be notified.
¶2 The mortgagee is the legal owner of the land, and has a *451 ¡substantial interest in it, and is the person entitled to the notice. The sale in this case was therefore void, and the .plaintiff was entitled to the order of foreclosure and sale made ¡below.
¶3 The taxes were, however, a charge upon the land, and as the defendant, Roberts, paid off the taxes, he has a lien upon ;the land for the amount so paid. With this modification, the order below is affirmed.
¶4 This will be certified that further proceedings may be had Recording to law, and the rights of the parties administered according to this opinion.
¶5 Neither party will recover cost in this Court, but each party will pay his own costs.
¶6 Per. Curiam. Judgment accordingly.