the same into a book known as the “Assessment Roll,” and on the 27th day of June, 1885, he resigned. Prior to his resignation, he deposited with the county clerk the book known as the “Assessment Roll,” with a small amount of the assessment transcribed therein, and all of the sheets on which the original assessment had been made; and with said sheets, and intending, as he says, to authenticate them, he deposited an oath, in the exact form prescribed by law, to be attached to the assessment roll proper. All these sheets are in evidence in this case. It also appears that as soon as it could be done after Reed’s resignation was filed, and on July 1, 1885, the county commissioners were assembled, Reed’s resignation was accepted, and one Ferguson appointed; that the county clerk delivered to Ferguson the assessment sheets deposited by Reed, and Ferguson employed one Elmsley to transcribe the taxes into the assessment roll, and said taxes were so transcribed, exactly as they appeared on the assessment sheets, under the supervision of the assessor, and he testifies to the correctness of the work, and the said roll was completed, and in the hands of the county commissioners, when they sat as a board of equalization. The record shows that the county commissioners met as a board of equalization on July 6th, (Monday,) and held sessions on that day, and on the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th. On July 10, 1885, plaintiff, by his agent and attorney, appeared before said board, sitting as a board of equalization, and asked a reduction of the valuation placed upon his said property, which was refused. The county levy was made on Monday, September 7, 1885, substantially as found by the trial court.
Before stating the facts pertaining to the city taxes, we will state our conclusions upon the assessment and levy of the county taxes. The assessment was made by the proper county assessor, and in all respects as required by law. This fact is not questioned, but the contention is that no assessment roll was ever completed or filed as required by law. That the exact requirements of the statute were not met, will be admitted; but were the departures more than irregularities? Could respondent, by any possibility, have been prejudiced thereby? The assessments were made upon the usual and proper forms upon
