Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/337

 Miller, 30 N. W. Rep. 916; Shattuck v. Bascom, 12 N. E. Rep. 283; Smith v. Hard, 8 Atl. Rep. 317; Bundy v. Wolcott, 10 Atl. Rep. 756; Warren v. Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 24; Grand Rapids y. Blakely, 40 Mich. 367; Crooks v. Whitford, 47 Mich. 283; Griggs v. St. Croix Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 341; Tunbridge v. Smith, 48 Vt. 648; Walker v. Burlington, 56 Vt. 131; Reed v. Chandler, 32 Vt. 285; Sinclair v. Learned, 51 Mich. 335; People v. Towler, 56 N. Y. 253; Plumer v. Marathon Co., 46 Wis. 179; Scheiber v. Kuehler, 49 Wis. 291; Tierney v. Union Lumber Co., 47 Wis. 248; Marshall v. Benson, 48 Wis. 558; Rowe v. Hulett, 50 Vt. 643; Robson v. Osborn, 13 Tex. 299; Woffard v. McKinna, 23 Tex. 36; Davis v. Farnes, 26 Tex. 296; Matteson v. Rosendale, 37 Wis. 254. The county clerk failed to make out in duplicate the tax lists containing each tract valued and taxed separately and with the several species of taxes and the total of all the taxes carried out in separate columns opposite each tract. Either of these defects is fatal to the tax. State v. Williston, 20 Wis. 240; Crane v. City of Janesville, 20 Wis. 321; French y. Edwards, 13 Wall. 506; Terrill v. Groves, 18 Cal. 149; People vy. Sierra Buttes Mining Co., 39 Cal. 511; Cadwalader v. Nash, 14 Pac. Rep. 385; Hamilton v. Fond du Lac, 25 Wis. 490; Shimin v. Inman, 26 Me. 228; Barker v. Blake, 36 Me. 433; Sargent v. Bean, 7 Gray 125; Jennings v. Collins, 99 Mass. 29; Willey v. Scoville, 9 Ohio 43; Farnham v. Jones, 32 Minn. 7; Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich. 419; Rayner v. Lee, 20 Mich. 384; Seymour v. Peters, 35 N. W. Rep. 62; 1 Desty on Taxation, 573. Where the assessment fails to distinguish the amounts of the state, county and town taxes, but blends the whole in one aggregate sum, the blending is fatal to the levy. Thayer v. Stearns, 1 Pick. 482; People v. Moore, 1 Idaho 662; Merrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108; State v. Falkinburge,15 N. J. Law 326; Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12; Railroad Co. v. Hillegas, 18 N. J. Law 11. The Political Code provides that the duplicate tax list shall have attached to it the warrant of the county commissioners, which shall be the treasurer’s authority to collect the tax. In the case at bar no such warrant accompanied the list, and hence the treasurer has no legal right to collect the tax on plaintiff's property nor sell the same for such taxes.