revenue is not involved, as a condition of relief, be forced to have his taxes assessed and levied by a court in lieu of having them assessed and levied by other officers, who are familiar with the subject matter, and who are especially appointed by law to assess and levy the taxes of all citizens. We adhere to the language used in the opinion in Powers v. Larabee, supra: “It is, in a broad sense, a moral obligation, resting upon every taxpayer, to pay a fair and equal tax upon his property. Such obligation, however, does not become legal and enforceable in the courts unless the tax is a substantially legal one;” and also quote with approval what is said by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Barber v. Evans, 27 Minn. 92; 6 N. W. Rep. 445; wherein the court says, at p. 96, 27. Minn., and at p. 448,6 N. W. Rep.: “In respect to the suggestion that the taxes in this case, though not legal, were such as the owner ought equitably to have paid to the state, it is sufficient to say that no legal or equitable liability can arise in respect to the payment of any tax not founded upon a fair, valid assessment and levy, made in the manner provided by law. In the absence of any such assessment and levy, the owner has no means of ascertaining what sum he ought to pay in respect of any piece of property, and his just share of the public burden; and, under the laws in force governing this case, the courts have no power to make the requisite assessment and apportionment of the tax.” See, also, Plumer v. Board, 46 Wis. 164; 50 N. W. Rep. 416. It follows, from what has been said, that the judgment of the court below setting aside the tax deeds, and for costs, was proper as far as it went, and to that extent it must be affirmed.
But defendant now claims that the judgment falls short of meeting the requirements of § 1643 of the statutes, and should be modified, so as to give judgment in favor of defendant for the “true and just amount of taxes against the property.” The principle contention in the court below and in this court turned upon the title, both parties claiming ownership, and defendant demanding that the action should be dismissed, and that the title be confirmed in him. A rehearing being granted, the attention of the
