We think we have clearly shown that the tax on state bank stock is valid, and that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Before the majority by their opinion prevent from being collected over $1,000,000 of taxes now due from state banks, who are the best able financially of any in the state to pay those taxes, and thus cripple the schools, municipalities, and state to such an extent that it will make it very difficult for them to function as they should function, they should give very serious consideration to what has here been stated.
But let it be assumed that the Legislature had not enacted chap. 118, prohibiting the bringing of action of this character without first having submitted the matter to the county commissioners; we still maintain that the’ plaintiffs have no legal standing in this or any other court. It avers that in this proceeding it is acting in its own behalf, and all other corporations similarly situated. It further shows that the capital stock of the bank is $10,000, and its surplus and undivided profits $21,066.65, an aggregate of $31,066.65, and that the assessment made and returned was against the shares of capital stock and the various owners thereof at that valuation. It appears further that the tax was levied against these shares of stock, and that it was spread and charged against them. and that all steps were taken to make a valid tax against them under the provisions of § 2117, C. L., and that the aggregate of the tax was $699.01 for the year 1920.
It is now proper to notice that none of its stockholders are a party to the action; none of them are here complaining, and, under the law, Who else has a right to complain. There is no showing here that plaintiff has any authority to represent them. There is some statement to the effect that the stockholders are claiming to the plaintiff that the tax against their stock is illegal and void; but that is of no consequence, as they might tell the same thing to any one. The plaintiffs also state in the petition that the sheriff will collect the taxes by distraint against its property, but that statement is without any force or effect, as there is no tax levied against any of its property, but a tax is levied only against the property of stockholders. The shares of stock were properly assessed to their owners respectively as individuals. Plaintiff has no right to complain if the personal property of others is seized to pay their taxes; the only property that the sheriff is empowered to seize in satisfaction of personal property, is the property charged with the tax. First National Bank v. Steenson, 25 N. D. 629, 146 N. W. 1061. It is true since that decision § 26 of chap. 132 of the Session Laws of 1890 has
