Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/581

.

Presumptions are in favor of the legality of tax proceedings; and a levy properly made, will in equity, be held void only when it clearly appears that such levy was for purposes not authorized by lew. ''Farington v. N. E. Inv. Co., 102''. ''Bode v. N. E. Inv. Co., 121''.

.

1. Under the laws in force when such sale was made, the treasurer, in the matter of the collection of the taxes, was purely a ministerial officer; and when he received the duplicate tax-list, with the warrant of the county commissioners attached, if such process was fair on its face, and contained nothing that would apprise the treasurer of any defects or infirmities, and in a vase where it does not appear that the treasurer had any knowledge of any defects or infirmities, such treasurer was fully protected from personal liability in collecting the taxes, upon all property contained in said list, so long as he acted strictly within the statute. The law furnished his authority for selling property for delinquent taxes; the warrant, with the tax-list attached, furnished him the subjects upon which to exercise such authority. Tyler v. Cass Co., 369.

2. The statute, (Comp. Laws, § 1621,) which required the treasurer to “sell all lands liable for taxes of any description for the preceding ear or years,” meant all lands liable for taxes, as shown by the process in his hands. He could not refuse to sell lands on his list, nor could he sell lands not on his list. Id.

3. Section 1629, Comp. Laws, then in force, read as follows. “When by mistake or wrongful act of the treasurer, land has been sold on which no tax was due at the time, the county is to save the purchaser harmless by paying him the amount of the principal, and interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of sale, and the treasurer and his sureties shall be liable for the amount to the county on his bond, or the purchaser may recover the same directly from the treasurer.” Held, that the sale of the lands in this case was neither the mistake nor the wrongful act of the treasurer, within the meaning of said section, and that plaintiff has no right of action undgr such section. Id.

.

The recital in a tax-sale certificate that the purchaser would be entitled to a deed at a specified time was of no force as a covenant for a deed, and added nothing to the force of the statutory provision to same effect. Budge v. Grand Forks, 309.

.

1. Courts of equity should, in general, interfere to restrain the collection of a tax, or annul tax proceedings, only where it appears either that the property sought to be taxed is exempt from taxation, or that the tax itself is not warranted by law, or the persons assuming to assess and levy the same are without authority so to do, or where the proper taxing officials have acted fraudulently; and, in addition, plaintiff must bring himself within some recognized head of equity jurisdiction; and in the absence of statutory provisions regulating the subject, as a condition to relief in equity, the applicant must pay or tender the amount of taxes properly chargeable against his property. ''Farrington v. N. E. Inv. Co., 102''. ''Bode v. N. E. Inv. Co., 121''.

2. Held, further, that such action, in this state, comes within the provisions of § 1643 of the Comp. Laws, and that, instead of requiring the payment of the legal charges as a condition precedent to relief in