Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/338

 Cooley on Taxation, 2d Ed. 424; Hilbish v. Horner, 58 Pa. St. 93; Taft v. Barrett, 58 N. H. 447; Pearson v. Canney, 64 Mo. 188; Donald v. McKinnon, 17 Fla. 746; Blackwell on Tax Titles, 168. The notice of sale was not given as required by the statute and hence any sale made by the treasurer will be defective and void. Cooley on Taxation, 2d Ed. 482; Washington v. Pratt, 8 Wheat. 681; Early v. Doe, 16 How. 610; Moulton v. Blaisdell, 24 Mo. 283; Flint v. Sawyer, 30 Me. 226. The notice of sale was not given for the length of time required by the statute, which is as fatal as if no notice had been given at all. Prindle v. Campbell, 9 Minn. 220; State v. Newark, 36 N. J. Law 288; Early v. Doe, 16 How. 610; Haskell v. Bartlett, 34 Cal. 281; San Francisco v. McCain, 50 Cal. 210; People v. McCain, 51 Cal. 360; Kellogg v. McLaughlin, 8 Ohio 114;. Westbrook v. Wiley, 47 N. Y. 457; Hilgers v. Quinney, 51 Wis. 62; Stewart v. Meyer, 54 Md. 454; Renshaw v. Imboden, 31 La. 661; Pennell v. Monroe, 30 Ark. 661; Clark v. Rowan, 53 Ala. 400; Dubuque v. Wooten, 28 Iowa 571; Ormsby v. Louisville, 79 Ky. 197; Sheehy v. Hinds, 27 Minn. 259. The lands were not definitely described or designated in the notices and therefore a sale based thereon would be void. Cooley on Taxation, 2d Ed. 486; Farnum v. Buffum, 4 Cush. 260; Bidwell v. Webb, 10 Minn. 59; Bidwell v. Coleman, 11 Minn. 78; Williams v. Central Land Co., 32 Minn. 440. It is admitted by the demurrer that the amount of the taxes could not be ascertained from an inspection of the notices, and this makes a sale thereunder invalid. Braley v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610; People v. Savings Union, 31 Cal. 132; Tidd v. Rines, 26 Minn. 211; Wood v. Freeman, 1 Wall. 393; AlexlexanderAlexander [sic] v. Pitts, 7 Cush. 503. Injunction will lie to prevent the threatened sales. The rule is that while the mere illegality of the tax will not warrant the interference of acourt of equity, yet where the collection of the tax will create a cloud on the title injunction lies to prevent such collection. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U. 8. 516; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92U.S.575; Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer, 20 Minn 24; Small v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 459; Mayall v. City of St.