Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/92

 undisputed, and are common to both the city and county sales, It appears by defendant's answer, and is admitted by the plaintiff's reply, and was conceded at the trial, that the lots were struck off to the defendant at both of the tax sales in question, one at a time, for a sum bid for each as a separate parcel. The uncontroverted testimony, consisting of the assessor’s returns and tax lists, discloses the fact that in assessing the lots for the years in question both lots (11 and 12) were grouped together as an entirety, and were valued in the aggregate at one lump sum. The taxes were apportioned against the property upon such lump valuation. It appears affirmatively that no valuation was placed upon either lot separately, nor was a tax apportioned against either lot as a separate parcel of land. The evidence shows that the two lots constituted plaintiff's homestead; his house resting upon both lots. Conceding, without deciding the point, that the manner of occupying the property justified an aggregate valuation such as was made, it would follow that the sale must correspond to the valuation and the apportionment of the tax. It is well settled that, where distinct parcels of real estate are properly grouped as an entirety for valuation, and one tax is laid against the total value, the tax sale, if made, must correspond to the previous grouping and valuation of the property. No tax collector possesses the legal authority to arbitrarily divide the sum apportioned as a tax against such aggregate valuation, and sell a separate parcel for the whole tax, or any part of the tax. There being no tax against either lot as a separate parcel, there could lawfully be no separate tax sale of either lot. This rule is firmly established by the authorities. Black, Tax Titles, § 123; Kregelo v. Flint, 25 Kan. 695; Wyman v. Baer, 46 Mich. 418; 9 N.W. Rep. 455; Allen v. Morse, 72 Me. 502; Willey v. Scoville, 9 Ohio 43; Welty, Assessm. § 110, and notes 1a, 2; Cooley, Tax’n, pp. 493, 494, and notes; Moulton v. Doran, 10 Minn. 67, (Gil. 49;) 2 Desty, Tax’n, 871, and notes.

The tax deeds being invalid for an illegality which relates only to the sales, and which does not go to the ground work of the tax, defendant contends very properly that he has a right to show