Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/138

 for the purpose of preventing or removing a cloud upon title, and, second, that, even if respondent be within the general rule, still he is entitled to no relief because he has failed to do equity, by paying or tendering the amount of taxes properly chargeable against his property.

We find these propositions so often discussed in the same case, and so intimately connected, that we cite the authorities indiscriminately upon the two points. It will be noticed that this is not an action to restrain the collection of a tax. It is an action, brought after tax-sale, to declare the tax void, and cancel the certificates issued thereon. It has been frequently held, however, that the same equitable rules apply in both cases. See City of Lawrence v. Killam, 11 Kan. (2d Ed.) 375; Stebbins v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 55; Wood v. Helmer, (Neb.) 4 N. W. Rep. 968. The general rule pertaining to the interference of equity with tax proceedings is stated by High, Inj. §§ 485, 486, as follows: “It may be laid down as a general rule that equity will not interfere by injunction with the collection of a tax which is alleged to be illegal or void merely because of its illegality, hardship, or irregularity, but there must be some special circumstances attending the threatened injury to distinguish it from a mere trespass, and thus to bring the case within some recognized head of equity jurisprudence; otherwise the person aggrieved will be left to his remedy at law. * * * Nor will equity interfere by injunction with the enforcement or collection of taxes because of irregularities, illegalities, or errors in the assessment of the tax, or in the proceedings incident to its collection, or in the execution of the power conferred upon taxing officers, but in all such cases the tax-payer seeking relief will be left to pursue his remedy at law; and where it does not appear that the established principle of taxation has been violated, or that actual and substantial injustice will result from the operation of the tax, or that it was for an unauthorized purpose, equity will not restrain the execution of a deed of land sold for taxes on the ground that the proceedings were irregular, or even void, in some particulars.”

In Michigan the rule is thus stated: “Equity will not interfere to restrain the collection of the public revenue for mere