Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/169

 any essential particular the proceedings on which it depends were irregular. Lacy v. Davis, 4 Mich. 140-157; Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12, 34, 37; Amberg v. Rogers, 9 Mich. 332; Grosbeck v. Sealy, 13 Mich. 414; Rayburn v. Kuhl, 10 Iowa 92; Cooper v. Shepardson, 51 Cal. 299; Bidleman v. Brook, 28 Cal. 75; Thompson v. Ware, 43 Iowa 453; Butler v. Delano, 42 Iowa 350; Williams v. Kirkland, 13 Wall. 306; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 514; Blackwell on Tax Titles, 83 D. Note; 2d Desty on Taxation, 961, 969; Johnson y. Elwood, 53 N. Y. 431. The assessment was void on account of there not being a proper description of the lands. Even a tax judgment is void that described land as S 2 N E.4 of a designated section, town and range. Keith v. Hayden, 26 Minn. 212; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 208. There was no board of equalization. When the statute fixes a time for the meeting of the board of review, and it fails to meet, or for return and filing of the assessment roll for inspection, and it is not filed, the proceeding becomes ineffectual. Wiley on Assessments, 224 and 154; Blackwell on Tax Titles, 181, 118, 122; French v. Adams, 13 Wall. 506. Notice and an opportunity for a hearing is indispensible. Wiley on Assessments, § 154 And see Pierre Water Works v. County of Hughes, 37 N. W. Rep. 733. There was no record of any levy of taxes. Every essential proceeding in the course of a levy of taxes must appear in some written and permanent form in the record of the bodies authorized to act upon them. Cooley on Taxation, 247; Desty on Taxation, 1087; Nosme v. White, 29 Mich. 59. There was no legal sale for the reason that the amount of taxes due, given in the notice prescribed by statute, was only stated by placing opposite the description of each tract, under the heading “amount,” certain figures or numerals without anything to show what they indicated. That was clearly insufficient. Wood v. Freeman, 1 Wall. 399; Bradley v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 612; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Ill. 143; Eppinger v. Kirby, 23 Ill. 469; Wiley on Assessments, § 225; Cooley on Taxation, 2d Ed. 411; People v. Savings Bank, 31 Cal. 132; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 208. The trial court found that there was no return to the sale. There must be a lawful return to support a statutory sale and convey-