We hold that the agreement could cover exceptions to the matter of the charge only. It is not competent for counsel to sit by and make no objections to oral instructions when given on that ground, and by agreement save their exceptions weeks later. Such a course is not fair to the court, and has the support of no adjudicated case, so far as we know. When counsel so sit by without objection, they must be held to have waived the error. Sack. Instruct. Juries, 14; Garton v. Bank, 34 Mich. 279; State v. Sipult, 17 Iowa, 575; Vanway v. State, 41 Tex. 639. Many errors are alleged upon the rulings of the court in the ad- mission or rejéction of testimony. We.have examined them all, and consider them not well taken. Their reproduction here would be an unwarranted use of space. The judgment of the district court is in all things affirmed. All concur.
Wallin, J., having been of counsel, did not sit on the hearing of this case; Judge Winchester, of the Sixth district, sitting by request.
James B. Powes, Plaintiff and Appellant v. J. D. Lanasez,
Defendant and Respondent.
Taxation—Assessment—Description of Lands—Board of Equalization—Time of Meeting—Notice—Vacation of Tax Deed—Terms.
1. The plaintiff's lands were sold for the alleged taxes of 1886 to defendant, and subsequent'y defendant received a tax deed in due form therefor, and recorded his deed. Defendant voluntarily paid the alleged taxes on the land for the years 1837 and 1888. Such lands did not appear on the assessment roll or tax list of the county where they were located in either of said years, otherwise than as follows:
Description. Section. Township. Range. W. 2 of W. 2 7 143 57 E. 2 of E. 2 13 143 58 W. 2 of S. E. 15 138 58 N. 2 N. W. 3 139 58
—Held, that said attempted description of the lands is insufficient as a basis of taxation, and that no valid assessment was made or could be made on such pretended description. The description is not ex-
