in one item of tax. Eighth. The duplicate tax-list was not delivered to the treasurer until November 6, 1885. Ninth. The only notice of sale published by the treasurer in 1886 for delinquent taxes of 1885 did not describe the plaintiff’s lots in severalty, but lumped them, in groups of two to ten each, opposite one item of tax. Tenth. Said notice entirely omitted certain lots that were sold. The eleventh finding states that the board of trustees of the city of Devil’s Lake did not, on or before the third Tuesday in May, 1885, or at any other time during said year, determine the general amount of tax for that year. The twelfth finds that said board did not during said year promulgate any rules for the assessment of property, or the guidance of the assessor. Thirteenth. The assessor of said city did not make return of any assessment roll to said board on or before the second Tuesday in June of said year, or on or before the meeting of such board of equalization. The fourteenth states that no notice was given that the assessment roll was returned and open for inspection. An assessment roll was made by said assessor without rules or regulations by the board of trustees, but the same was unverified by the oath of the assessor, and subsequently lost or destroyed; and the court was unable to say, from the evidence, whether the same was ever returned to the board of trustees. The fifteenth finding states that the city tax of seven mills on the dollar, for which plaintiff’s lots were sold, was never levied by the trustees; the only levy for that year being a levy of four mills, made before any assessment or assessment roll was made. The sixteenth states that no delinquent tax-list for 1885 was certified by the board of trustees, or other officer of the city of Devil’s Lake, to the county treasurer, and said treasurer had no warrant or other authority directing or requiring him to sell plaintiff's lands, or any of them. The other findings do not bear on the issues now involved.
We will review the evidence pertaining to all findings which affect the assessment, levy, and equalization of the taxes, county and city, and those only, because the decision of this case must depend upon the existence or non-existence of a valid tax against plaintiff's property in the year 1885. Respondent attacks the validity of the tax, and the burden is upon him to es-
