Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/135

which tax-payers’ statements are entered. Those statements were acurately copied into the roll. Had Reed not resigned, and had the same statements been copied by the-same clerk, and the same roll been placed before the board of equalization, could any objection have been raised thereto save the want of verification? Again, can it be that the caprice of the resignation, or the misfortune of the death, of an assessor, at such a time prior to the first Monday of July in any year so as to render a new assessment by that date an impossibility, must inevitably deprive the state and county of its revenue for that year? We find no authority that would warrant a court of equity in adopting a rule so technical. An unauthorized party had attached to the assessment roll the oath that Reed filed with his assessment sheet. Its presence was without effect, and the roll was unverified. But, under statutes of the same import as ours, it has been repeatedly held that the fact that no oath was attached to or is returned with the roll would not warrant a court of equity in interfering in any manner with the tax proceedings. See on this point Land Co. v. City of Crete, (Neb.) 7 N. W. Rep. 859; Wood v. Helmer, (Neb.) 4 .N. W. Rep. 968; Boeck v. Merriam, id. 962; Frost v. Flick, 1 Dak. 131; Challiss v. Commissioners, 15 Kan. 49; Fifield v. Marinette Co., (Wis.) 22 N. W. Rep. 705; Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co. v. Lincoln Co., (Wis.) 30 N. W. Rep. 619. It also appears that plaintiff filed his petition before the board of equalization, asking to have his assessment reduced. No claim of fraud is made either against the assessment or equalization. Under the authorities, respondent cannot be heard to say in this case that his property was assessed too high, or that the roll was not returned in time to enable him to appear before the board of equalization. Welty, Assessm. § 10; Hutchinson v. Board, (Iowa,) 23 N. W. Rep. 249; Henkle v. Town of Keota, (Iowa,) 27 N. W. Rep. 250; Insurance Co. v. Pollak, 75 Ill. 294; State v. Jersey City, 28 N. J. Law, 500. But counsel for respondent vigorously attacks the levy. It was made at the proper time, by the proper officials, and is clearly correct as to territorial tax, general county fund tax, and interest on bonds. There was also levied a special tax of one mill. The evidence does not clearly disclose the purpose