there is no separate assessment of the minerals, a purchase of the whole by the owner of the surface divests the title of the owner of the minerals”); Hutchinson, 49 A. 312. We find no distinction based upon the timing of the severance. After rejecting the Keller Heirs’ various arguments regarding the effect of the 1935 tax sale, we next consider whether the documents in the record demonstrate the 1935 tax sale was imposed on the Eleanor Siddons Warrant as a whole. We reiterate that the caselaw counsels that unseated land should be assessed according to the original warrant, absent direction from the owners, and that a tax sale conveys the property covered by the assessment. See New York State Natural Gas Corp. v. Swan-Finch Gas Development Corp., 278 F.2d 577, 579 (3d Cir.1960) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Section 5 of the Act of 1804
holding that it is well established that a taxpayer has no right to insist upon the same erroneous treatment afforded a similarly situated taxpayer in the past holding that the taxpayer has the burden to prove the governments tax assessment is incorrect recognizing the well established rule that a tax deed conveys only such interest as was actually assessed to the defaulting taxpayer citing brundred v egbert 164 pa 615 30 a 503 505 1894 holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding a quitclaim deed yields only such interest in land as the grantor had at the time of the making of such deed