Opinion of the Court-FULLER, J. [19 S. D. objection to the introduction of the tax receipts and certificates of sale was well taken, but the presumption that the trial court disregarded the same must be entertained. Yankton Building & Loan Association v. Dowling et al., 10 S. D. 540, 74 N. W. 436; Fowler et al. v. Iowa Land Co., Limited, et al., 18 S. D. 131, 99 N. W. 1095. During all the years for which respondent paid the taxes and claimed ownership under his void tax deed there was a two-story frame dwelling house situated on the lot described in that instrument, which appellant wrongfully removed to an adjacent lot just prior to the commencement of this action; and the amount of such taxes, together with interest, was adjudged to be a lien upon the house as well as on the lot, and the concluding paragraph of the judgment is as follows: "It is further adjudged, ordered, and decreed that upon the failure of the said Emma A. Cranmer to pay to the said C. F. Easton, or his attorney, the said sum of five hundred and fiftysix dollars ($556) so as aforesaid found to be due, within thirty days from the time of the service of this decree, then in that case the plaintiff may have execution, and sell said lot seven (7) in block fifteen (15) of the original plat of the city of Aberdeen, together with the frame dwelling house now situated on lot eight (8) in block fifteen (15), of the original plat of the city of Aberdeen, to the highest bidder, for cash, and apply the proceeds, so far as the same may be applicable, to the payment of the said sum of five hundred and fifty-six dollars ($556), together with interest thereon at twelve (12) per cent. per annum until the same is paid, and for all accruing costs after the filing of this judgment, and that the purchaser have the right to remove said dwelling house from said lot eight (8) in block March, 1905] Opinion of the Court-FULLER, J. fifteen (15) of the original plat of Aberdeen; and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that, in case said property sells for more than sufficient to pay the said sum of five hundred fiftysix dollars ($556) and accruing costs, then and in that case the surplus be deposited with the clerk of the circuit court in and for the county of Brown, South Dakota, for the use and benefit of the said Emma Cranmer, defendant herein." Respondent having purchased certain tax certificates from the county, and paid all subsequent taxes legally imposed, acquired the lien of the county upon the lot and the buildings situated thereon which lien was in no manner impaired by the removal of the building in violation of a statute declaring the perpetrator of such an act to be guilty of a misdemeanor (Rev. Pol. Code, §§ 1568, 1569, 2190, 2199). The relief granted is clearly within the foregoing statutory provisions, and the judgment appealed from is in full accord with the uniform decisions of this court. On the 9th day of April, 1904, which was the day following the taking and perfecting of this appeal, the house and lot were, upon due notice, sold separately at public auction, by virtue of an execution predicated upon the judgment before us; and on the 17th day of June following an appeal was taken from an order of confirmation made and entered on the 18th day of April, 1901, in which it is recited that the building in controversy had been sold "as an article of personal property," thus apparently depriving appellant of the right to redeem at any time within one year from the date of such sale. The record does not sustain respondent's contention that the appeal from this order of confirmation must be dismissed on the ground that the same was not perfected in the manner pro Opinion of the Court-FULLER, J. [19 S. D. vided by statute, and it is unneccessary to make such order, and the original papers connected therewith and transmitted to this court, a part of the bill of exceptions. Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 15 S. D. 310, 89 N. W. 479. Although the practice is unusual and not to be encouraged, a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal from the order confirming the sale is not, under the circumstances, furnished by the fact that the records and files essential to a proper consideration thereof were printed in the abstract submitted to this court, and argued with the case on appeal from the judgment. In contemplation of the statute relating to taxation, the character of a building at tached to a city lot is not changed by its unlawful severance, and the right to subject the same to the payment of real estate taxes, the amount of which was fixed with reference to such improvement, may not thus be defeated. However, as personal property cannot be sold for delinquent taxes on land, the Legislature has continued the lien, and justified the sale of a removed building in satisfaction of such taxes, upon the theory that it is still a part of the premises. The loss of the right of redemption being the only prejudice apparent, the order confirming the sale is modified by eliminating the recital which characterizes the building as "an article of personal property," and with reference thereto the rights of a redemptioner from the sale of real estate is adjudged to be hers. For reasons heretofore stated, appellant's title is subject to respondent's lien for taxes, as found by the trial court, and the judgment from which she appealed is in all respects affirmed. In view of the modification above indicated, no costs or disbursements will be taxed, except clerk's fees in favor of appellant. April, 1905] Opinion of the Court-FULLER, J. BAILEY V. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS. 1. A resolution by a city for the purchase of boilers with which to operate its electric light plant, with the understanding that it will enter into a contract for the purchase of the boilers, and agree that an appropriation therefor shall be made at a future time, and that the boilers are not to be paid for until the appropriation is made and warrants drawn on the special fund, and that no agreement for the purchase will be made whereby the seller will receive any warrants or money for the boilers until the appropriation is made, and that the city will in no way obligate itself to pay for the boilers until an appropriation is made and warrants issued, does not create a debt in the sense of the Constitution limiting municipal indebtedness. 2. A taxpayer seeking to enjoin the officers of a city from incurring a debt beyond the constitutional limitation does not lose his remedy nor suffer irreparable injury by reason of the court denying a preliminary injunction to restrain the officers of the city from incurring the indebtedness. (Opinion filed April 4, 1905.) Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Hon. JOSEPH W. JONES, Judge. Suit by C. O. Bailey against the city of Sioux Falls. From an order denying a temporary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Davis, Lyon & Gates and Bailey & Voorhees, for appellant. FULLER, J. This appeal is from an order denying a temporary injunction in an action by a taxpayer to permanently restrain the city officials of Sioux Falls from incurring an indebtedness of $6,000 for two new boilers with which to operate its electric light plant, installed during the year 1901, and since Opinion of the Court-FULLER, J. [19 S. D. maintained for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the city. Though the affidavits presented to the trial court are conflicting in many material particulars, it cannot be said that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that a sufficient amount to warrent the alleged expenditure still reinains in the current fund provided for electric light maintenance by the annual appropriation bill passed at the regular September, 1903, meeting. Moreover, it clearly appears that the city council has no intention of creating a debt until the same is provided for in the annual appropriation bill for the year 1904. That an imperative necessity for the boilers exists is undisputed, and the nature of the contemplated transaction is shown by the following well-corroborated affidavit: "That it is the intention of said city to enter into the contract for the purchase of the boilers, costing about $6,000.00, agreeing by proper resolution or ordinance that the appropriation shall be made for said purpose in September, 1904, and that said boilers are not to be paid for until such appropriation is made and warrants drawn on said special fund, and that no agreement or contract for the purchase of said boilers will be made whereby the seller will ask or receive of the city any warrants or money for said boilers until the appropriation is made by said city to meet the same, and said city will in no way obligate itself to pay for said boilers until an appropriation is made and warrants issued on said appropriation." Upon principle the case of the Burlington Water Co. v. Woodward, 49 Iowa 58, is somewhat analogous, and from the opinion of the court we quote as follows: "Now, the ordinance expressly provides that the city may purchase the works as soon as its financial condition will permit. But this provision cannot have the ef |