tion of the tax claim against such shares of stock. It further shows that at the time of making this statement the owners of the shares of stock claimed that the stock was not liable to taxation, but that they were exempt from the year 1920.
It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiffs concede that every step necessary has been taken by the respective taxing officers—that is, that there was a proper assessment made; that the county equalization board, at its regular meeting in July of 1920 and 1921 properly equalized the assessment, and gave proper notice of review thereof under § 2138, C. T.. 1913. It is also clear that the plaintiffs did not appear at the July meeting of either year to object to the taxation of their stock. If there were any objections to the assessment of the stock, which it is conceded has been properly made, or any to the taxation of their stock, they should have been made to the board of county commissioners at their annual July meeting for equalization and review of assessments and levy of taxes, and, if plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the determination there made by the county commissioners, they could have appealed from their decision to the district court, and this under the provisions of § 3298, C. L. 1913. They did not do this, but remained quiet for about two years, and permitted the different taxing officers, the state, and the governmental subdivisions and school district to believe the tax against their stock was available as part of the public revenues, and permitted them to take it into consideration in the determination of the amount of public revenues necessary to be raised. It would seem that they should not now be permitted to question the validity of the tax. They claim to have served a demand at the time of commencing this action on the county commissioners to abate the tax. This did not aid them. Under chap. 172 of the Constitution, and § 3276, C. L., and under laws which have been or may be enacted under the provisions of chap. 173 of the Constitution prescribing the duties of county commissioners, the board of county commissioners have control of the fiscal affairs of the county. «After the meeting on the first Monday in July of each year, the meeting at which the board acts as a board of equalization and a board of review, and levies the tax, all proceedings of the meeting must be legally published. Thus again have plaintiffs had full notice of all proceedings.
The determination of whether a tax is valid or invalid is a fiscal affair, of which the board of county commissioners has jurisdiction, and objections, if any, should have been presented to that board at the July meeting. First National Bank v. Steenson, 25 N. D. 629, 146 N. W.
