(after stating the facts). It is unnecessary to discuss the defects upon which complainant relies to defeat the payment of his taxes. The decree is right for two reasons: (1) Because the complainant knew of the proceedings as they were going on, and took none of the steps provided by statute for a speedy determination of the question of their validity. Auditor General v. Melze, 124 Mich. 285 (82 N. W. 886). (3) Complainant cannot be heard in a court of equity after the drain has been completed. He cannot stand by, see the work go on to completion, and then file a bill in equity to test the validity of the proceedings. Township of Walker v. Thomas, 123 Mich. 290 (82 N. W. 48).

The decree is affirmed, with costs.