not impeach it collaterally on account of the error. Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162.

1. People v. Collison (Supreme Ct.), 6 N. Y. Supp. 711; Oswego County v. Betts, 6 N. Y. Supp. 934; 53 Hun (N.Y.) 638; People v. McComber (Supreme Ct.), 7 N. Y. Supp. 71; Hartwell v. Root, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 345; 10 Am. Dec. 232; Matter of Voorhis, 90 N. Y. 668; People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574; Perry County v. Selma, etc., R. Co., 65 Ala. 390; State Auditor v. Jackson County, 65 Ala. 142; Palmer v. Boling, 8 Cal. 384; Linton v. Athens, 53 Ga. 588; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baker, 135 Ill. 545; Beers v. People, 83 Ill. 488; Buck v. People, 78 Ill. 560; Cleghorn v. Postle waite, 43 Ill. 428; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424; Adams v. Davis, 109 Ind. 10; Silcott v. McCarty, 62 Iowa 161; Snell v. Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa 564; Beeson v. Johns, 59 Iowa 166; Francis v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 19 Kan. 316; Oteri v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 374; New Orleans v. New Orleans Canal, etc., Co., 29 La. Ann. 851; New Orleans v. Louisiana Sav. Bank, 31 La. Ann. 826 ; State v. Louisiana Sav. Bank, 32 La. Ann. 1136; Blossom v. Cannon, 14 Mass. 177; Blackwood v. Van Vliet, 30 Mich. 118; Yelverton v. Steele, 36 Mich. 62; Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615; Hunt v. Chapin, 42 Mich. 25; Perkins v. Nugent, 45 Mich. 157; Cuming v. Grand Rapids, 46 Mich. 150; St. Peter's Church v. Scott County, 12 Minn. 395; Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn. 297; Brigins v. Chandler, 60 Miss. 862; Miller v. Hurford, 13 Neb. 13; Dewey v. Stratford, 42 N. H. 282; State v. Pierson, 47 N. J. L. 247; State v. Hawkens, 50 N. J. L. 122; Newark v. State, 32 N. J. L. 453; State v. Manning, 41 N. J. L. 275; Farrington v. New England Invest. Co., 1 N. Dak. 102; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. State, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 663; McComber v. Center, 44 Vt. 235; Canfield v. Bayfield County, 74 Wis. 60; State v. Manitowoc County Clerk, 59 Wis. 15.

In the matter of the assessment of taxes by municipal corporations, the intendments are less liberal. State Auditor v. Jackson County, 65 Ala. 142. It is unnecessary to adduce evidence

to justify an assessment apparently legally made; it stands until it is shown to be erroneous by satisfactory proof. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 40 La. Ann. 371.

An assessment roll is not to be pronounced invalid and a tax sale void because, many years afterwards, an error appears in the copy, the original being lost. Chamberlain v. Taylor, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 24.

The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish a charge of illegality. Oteri v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 374; Macomber v. Center, 44 Vt. 235.

But in Bate v. Speed, 10 Bush (Ky.) 644, it is said that where the action of the ministerial and judicial officers whose duty it is to impose a tax, is called directly in question by the taxpayers, and their authority and jurisdiction denied, no presumption is indulged that the tax was legally imposed.

2. Avant v. Flynn (S. Dak. 1891), 49 N. W. Rep. 15; San Francisco, etc., R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12; South Platte Land Co. v. Crete, 11 Neb. 344. And see Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. Osceola County, 45 Iowa 168; Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll County, 41 Iowa 153; Smith v. Leavenworth County, 9 Kan. 296; Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 7 Kan. 210; Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Blake, 9 Kan. 489; Wood v. McGuire (Supreme Ct.), 17 N. Y. Supp. 659; Hayford v. Belfast, 69 Me. 63; Rogers v. Greenbush, 58 Me. 390; 4 Am. Rep. 292; Gilman v. Waterville, 59 Me. 491; State v. Runyon, 41 N. J. L. 98; State v. Cook, 32 Ň. J. L. 347; State v. Saalman, 37 N. J. L. 156; Beers v. People, 83 Ill. 488; Fisher v. People, 84 III. 491; Atkins v. Hinman, 7 Ill. 451; Henry v. Chester, 15 Vt. 460; Downing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. 441; Sawyer v. Gleason, 59 N. H. 140; George v. Dean, 47 Tex. 73; State v. Bishop, 34 N. J. L. 45; Com. v. New England Slate, etc., Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 391; Wilson v. Weber, 96 Ill. 454; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. People, 138 Ill. 367; Hixon v. Oneida County, 82 Wis. 515.

So an injunction will not lie to prevent the collection of the revenues of a municipality for mere irregularities in the assessment. Covington v. Rock

ingham, 93 N. Car. 134. And see Wilson v. Wheeler, 55 Vt. 446.

An assessment of land as timber land, where timber has been recently cut, will not vitiate the tax. Boorman v. Juneau County, 76 Wis. 550. See also supra, this title, The Roll; Form and Contents Generally.

1. People v. McComber (Supreme Ct.), 7 Ñ. Y. Supp. 71; McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142; People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574. And see People v. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 582.

The question as to whether persons or property are assessable, is a jurisdictional one and always open to inquiry when the authority to make the assessment is assailed. McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142.

Nor is an assessment conclusive as to the place of residence of the person assessed. Preston v. King, 61 Vt. 606.

2. Goff v. Outagamie County, 43 Wis. 55; Hersey v. Barron County, 37 Wis. 75; Marsh v. Clark County, 42 Wis. 502; Schettler v. Fort Howard, 43 Wis. 48; Salscheider v. Fort Howard, 45 Wis. 519; Central R. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 49 N. J. L. 1.

In People v. Haren (Supreme Ct.), 3 N. Y. Supp. 86, it was held that if the assessors disregard a decision of the court in a similar case in relation to the valuation of property, they are chargeable personally with the costs of an appeal from an order reducing the valuation fixed by them; and in People v. Carter, 119 N. Y. 557, that where there has been a judicial determination fixing the value of land at the sum assessed for several preceding years, the former adjudications are binding and conclusive upon certiorari to review the assessment, in the absence of evidence of some change affecting the value.

3. See Buttenuth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Ill. 535; St. Louis Bridge, etc., R. Co. v. People, 127 Ill. 627; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; People v. Lots in Ashley, 122 Ill. 297.

The fact that the assessment is much larger than the one for the preceding year, does not establish fraud, especially where the preceding assessment was less than the cost of the property. St. Louis Bridge, etc., R. Co. v. People, 127 Ill. 627.

4. Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y. 30; National Bank v. Elmira, 53 N. Y. 53; Obering v. Foote, 65 N. Y. 263; Dorn v. Backer, 61 N. Y. 261; Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Herriman v. Stowers, 43 Me. 497; Dickinson v. Billings, 4 Gray (Mass.) 42; Little v. Merrill, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 543; Judd v. Thompson, 125 Mass. 553. And see Ford v. McGregor, 20 Nev. 446; Whitmore v. McGregor, 20 Nev. 451.

Persons acting as assessors, without having been legally elected, are liable for the acts of the collector to whom they have issued a warrant. Allen v. Archer, 49 Me. 346.

The burden of proof of the facts necessary to establish their jurisdiction, rests with the assessors when they are sought to be held personally liable for acts done under color of their office. Dickinson v.Billings,4 Gray (Mass.) 42.

5. Stearns v. Miller, 25 Vt. 20; Kellogg v. Higgins, 11 Vt. 240; Henry v. Edson, 2 Vt. 497; Howard v. Shumway, 13 Vt. 358; Fairbanks v. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9.

The taxpayer is entitled to an action for damages sustained, but not to recover his money back. Hayford v. Belfast, 69 Me. 63; Gilman v. Waterville, 59 Me. 491.

Where a highway tax which is worked out or paid, is required to be placed in the next assessment, if the assessor fails to do so and places it in a subsequent assessment, an action will lie therefor against him. Eames v. Johnson, 4 Allen (Mass.) 382.

If they transcend the limits of their authority, they cease to act as judges and become responsible for all consequences. Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 117; Brown v. Smith, 24 Barb.

(N. Y.) 419; Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N. Y. 340; Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Drew v. Davis, 10 Vt. 506; 33 Am. Dec. 213.

An assessment or a change in an assessment made after the time within which the assessment is required to be made, renders the assessors liable. Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Westfall v. Preston, 49 N. Y. 349; Bennett 7. Buffalo, 17 N. Y. 383; Mygatt v. Washburn, 15 N. Y. 316. And see Overing v. Foote, 65 N. Y. 263.

If, in assessing a tax, the assessors exceed the sum voted to be raised, they will be liable in trespass to a person whose goods they distrain. Huse v. Merriam, 2 Me. 375; Libby v. Burnham, 15 Mass. 144.

But in Easton v. Calendar, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 90, it was held that in apportioning a tax, only the sum voted, or otherwise authorized, can be apportioned, but an assessment apportioning the percentages for collection, as well as the tax, was held not to render the assessor liable.

But one cannot maintain an action against assessors for wrongfully placing his name on their rolls, whereby he was compelled to pay a tax, if the assessment had neither been set aside nor reversed, and if the tax was voluntarily paid. Sexton v. Pepper, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 31.

Misinterpretation of the Law.-In Lincoln v. Chapin, 132 Mass. 470, it was held that an assessor was not liable for neglecting to commit the tax list to the collector where he commits it to himself under an erroneous view of the law.

Liability of Two Members of Board.Where two listers of a town, without the consent of the third, do an act which if done by all would subject them to damages, the two may be held liable therefor. Fuller v. Gould, 20 Vt. 643.

Taxpayer's Procurement. An erroneous assessment or a non-performance of duty will not subject the assessor, where the error was committed or the omission made at the instance of the taxpayer himself. Hilton v. Fonda, 86 N. Y. 352; Pease v. Whitney, 8 Mass.

93. But the failure of the taxpayer to appear before the board of equalization and apply for a reduction of his assessment, or the refusal of the board to reduce it, does not excuse the assessor for malicious wrong-doing. Parkinson v. Parker, 48 Iowa 667.

1. People v. Chenango County, 11 N. Y. 563; Ware v. Percival, 61 Me. 391; 14 Am. Rep. 565; Agry v. Young, II Mass. 220; Inglee v. Bosworth, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 498; Freeman v. Kinney, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 44.

So they are personally liable for assessing any non-resident for personal property, although the question of nonresidence is doubtful. Dorwin v. Strickland, 57 N. Y. 493; Mygatt v. Washburn, 15 N. Y. 316.

They do not act judicially in deciding whether or not they have jurisdiction. Prosser v. Secor, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 608. Where a farm, which lies in two adjoining towns, is assessed in the town in which the owner and occupant does not reside, the assessment and tax are illegal, and the assessors are personally liable. Dorn v. Backer, 61 N. Y. 261. But see Brown v. Smith, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 419.

30;

2. Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y. Easton v. Calendar, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 90; Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 117; Stewart v. Case (Minn. 1893), 54 N. W. Rep. 938; Wall v. Trumbull, 16 Mich. 238; Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 547; Colman v. Anderson, 10 Mass. 119; Sprague v. Bailey, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 436; Griffin v. Rising, 11 Met. (Mass.) 339; Durant v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 469; Odiorne v. Rand, 59 N. H. 504; McDaniel v. Tebbetts, 60 N. H. 497. And see People v. Reddy, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 539; Vose v. Willard, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 320; Western R. Co. v. Nolan, 48 N. Y. 513; Wilson v. Marsh, 34 Vt. 352; Fuller v. Gould, 20 Vt. 643.

In making assessments in all cases where the assessors have jurisdiction, the assessors act judicially. Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. Erie County, 48 N. Y. 105; Swift v. Poughkeepsie, 37 N. Y. 511; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y. 238.

In Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 22, it was held that the inquiries which assessors are required to make pertaining to their assessment, are judicial acts.

1. Stearns v. Miller, 25 Vt. 20; Fairbanks v. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9; Moss v. Cummings, 44 Mich. 359; Parkinson v. Parker, 48 Iowa 667; Wade v. Matheson, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 158; Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 22; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y. 238; State v. Jersey City, 24 N. J. L. 662; Hagar v. Řeclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701.

The overvaluation must have been made with intent to injure. Ballerino v. Mason, 83 Cal. 447.

In Moss v. Cummings, 44 Mich. 359, it was said that making an assessment on a false valuation should be punished criminally.

2. See National Bank v. Elmira, 53 N. Y. 53; Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 117; Robinson v. Rowland, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 501; Hemingway v. Machias, 33 Me. 445; Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Me. 404; Colman v. Anderson, 10 Mass. 105; Meade v. Haines, 81 Mich. 261.

3. Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 22; National Bank v. Elmira, 53 N. Y. 53; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y. 238; Clinton School Dist.'s Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 315; Hayes v. Hanson, 12 N. H. 284; Salisbury v. Merrimack County, 59 N. H. 359.

Where the assessors have jurisdiction to assess the taxpayer for some amount, it is immaterial whether they assess him too high, in consequence of not allowing an exemption, or of an erroneous valuation of his property. Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y. 30.

Assessors of taxes who act in good faith in refusing to allow an exemption, are not chargeable with the costs of proceedings instituted to enforce it. People v. Peterson, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 421.

4. Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 547; Easton v. Čalendar, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 90; Meade v. Haines, 81 Mich. 261. But see Dunham v. Chicago, 55 Ill. 387.

Assessors are not liable to a parish for neglecting to assess a tax equal to the amount voted, when they act under the honest belief that they are carrying out the views and directions of the parish. First Parish v. Fisk, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 264.

5. Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162; Edes v. Boardman, 58 N. H. 580.

6. Little v. Merrill, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 543; Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 271; 7 Am. Dec. 145; Drew v. Davis, 10 Vt. 506; 33 Am. Dec. 213.

In Massachusetts, assessors were held liable for assessing and issuing a warrant for the collection of a school tax, where the school district was not legally established, even though it was certified to them by one acting as clerk of the school district that the tax had been voted by the district. Judd v. Thompson, 125 Mass. 553; Dickinson v. Billings, 4 Gray (Mass.) 42.

7. Harrison v. Com., 83 Ky. 162; Bell v. Arkansas County, 44 Ark. 493; State v. Ransom, 9 S. Car. 199; State v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann. 235.

It cannot be intended that an assessor should receive extra.compensation because of an accidental and unforeseen necessity of the county, when he performs no additional service on account thereof. East v. Eichelberger, 69 Ala. 187.

But persons employed to procure evidence necessary to authorize the assessor to subject omitted property to taxation, are entitled to compensation for their services. State v. Hagerty, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 22.

Under the Arkansas statute, the assessor is entitled to one dollar, and no more, for assessing lands of non-resi

dents and unknown owners in each township in which there may be any or either. Bell v. Arkansas County, 44 Ark. 493.

And in South Carolina, warrants for expenses of assessments are payable from the first collection of county funds of the fiscal year for which they were made. See State v. Ransom, 9 S. Car. 199.

The board of assessors actually performing the work are entitled to the appropriation made for the compensation of assessors, and not a previous board who were functi officio when the work of assessment was done. State v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann. 235.

In Harrison v. Com., 83 Ky. 162, a statute allowing the assessor a certain sum for each person's list of taxable property returned, was held to entitle him to that amount for each list returned, whether it embraces property or not.

1. And, although the constitution may require the poll tax to be applied exclusively to a certain purpose, as the school fund, it must bear the expense of its own assessment. Shaver v. Robinson, 59 Ala. 195.

In Alabama, assessors are entitled only to commissions on taxes levied for general purposes or ordinary current expenses, and not on levies for special purposes. East v. Eichelberger, 69 Ala. 187.

2. Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701; Stanley v. Albany County, 121 U. S. 535; Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Drainage Dist., 134 Ill. 384; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385; Comstock v. Grand Rapids, 54 Mich. 641; Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182; Flax Pond Water Co. v. Lynn, 147 Mass. 31; Spalding . Hill, 86 Ky. 656; Price v. Kramer, 4 Colo. 546; Weaver v. State, 25 C. of L.-16

39 Ala. 535; Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1; Smith v. Jones County, 30 Iowa 531; Wharton v. Birmingham, 37 Pa. St. 371; State v. Holmes, 20 Ohio St. 474; Richmond v. Crenshaw, 76 Va. 936; Central R. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 49 N. J. L. 1; Fuller v. Elizabeth, 42 N. J. L. 427; Felsenthal v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 21; McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142. And such laws are held constitutional and valid, People v. Salomon, 46 Ill. 333; their very purpose being to equalize and make uniform the taxation of property. Spalding v. Hill, 86 Ky.656.

In Richmond v. Crenshaw, 76 Va. 936, it was held that the Virginia statute providing a remedy for the correction of excessive assessments, applies to assessments in previous years.

Where, under a city charter, the assessors agree to the inventory and valuation of property returned by the owner, it cannot be disturbed; an ordinance creating a board of assessment to examine and revise the list after it has been accepted and entered as satisfactory by the assessor and collector, is illegal. Dwyer v. Hackworth, 57 Tex. 245.

3. Yelverton v. Steele, 36 Mich. 62. And see Boyce v. Sebring, 66 Mich. 210; Aplin v. Roberts, 83 Mich. 471. The failure to submit the assessment to the proper board, for the purpose of equalization, renders it void. Henry v. Chester, 15 Vt. 460. And see Davis v. Vanarsdale, 59 Miss. 367.

But it will not affect a tax not depending upon the equalization. Chamberlain v. St. Ignace, 92 Mich. 332.

In Michigan, the object of the equalization is to obtain a basis for the apportionment of the state and county taxes among the several townships. Boyce v. Sebring, 66 Mich. 210. 4. Lawrence v. Janesville, 46 Wis. 364.