Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/150

 v. Carter, 18 N. W. Rep. 98; Ames v. Lowry, 15 N. W. Rep. 247; Judd vy. Anderson, 1 N.W. Rep. 677; Knote v. Caldwell, 23 Pac. Rep. 625; Welty on Assessments 170. Descriptions furnished by the United States surveys of the public lands may be used in making assessments. Welty on Assessments 173; Jenkins v. McTigue, 22 Fed. Rep. 148; McQuade v. Jaffrey, 50 N. W. Rep. 234; Taylor v. Wright, 13 N. E. Rep. 529; Hodgson v. Burleigh, 4 Fed. Rep. 111; Gilfillan v. Hobart, 24 N. W. Rep. 342; Judd v. Anderson, 1 N. W. Rep. 678; Atkinson v. Hinman, 7 Ill. 437. A description by which a competent svrveyor can identify the land is sufficient. Law v. Peo., 80 Il. 268; Fowler v. Peo., 93 Il. 116, Peo. v. Stahl, 101 Ill. 346. :

Wallin, J. Plaintiff was the owner of lands described in the complaint, and situated in Barnes County. Said lands were sold at tax sale in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889 for the alleged taxes of 1886, 1887, and 1888. Defendant was the purchaser of the lands at each and all of said sales, and tax certificates evidencing the sales, respectively, were delivered to him in due form. No redemption from either of the sales was ever made. The time for redemption from the first sale (1887) having expired, the county treasurer of said county made out in due form, and delivered to defendant, tax deeds of said lands, based on said tax sale of 1887. This action is brought to quiet title under § 5449, Comp. Laws. Defendant by his amended answer denies plaintiff's ownership of the land, and by way of counterclaim alleges title in himself by virtue of said tax deeds, and also sets up the sales to him of said lands for the taxes of 1887 and 1888, as already stated. Defendant demanded as his relief that the title of the lands be quieted and confirmed in himself, and further demanded that, in the event of the sale being declard void, plaintiff be required to pay all of said taxes with interest, as a condition of plaintiff's relief.

In view of the conclusion at which we have arrived, it will be unnecessary to consider all of the many points arising upon the record. We will, however, consider certain points of practice which are incidentally involved, and which effect the judgment