municipal taxes, has reference only to incorporated "institutions," and does not apply to a private unincorporated bank, which is taxable under the general law. Bowling Green v. Barclay, 91 Ky. 66.

Property of Insane Person.-Where land, owned by an insane person, and exempted, under Iowa Code, §711, from taxation, was sold by his guardian under an order of court, it was held that the land continued to be exempt until the sale and conveyance had been approved by the court. Ordway v. Smith, 53 Iowa 589.

Judge's Salary.-The article of the Louisiana Const. which declares that the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall at stated times receive a salary which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, exempts the salary of a judge from taxation. New Orleans v. Lea, 14 La Ann. 194.

Road Tax.-Missouri Rev. St., § 5012, exempting from road tax the property of all persons residing within the limits of an incorporated village or town, embraces the property of non-residents. State v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. 166. Growing Crops. (See also CROPS, vol. 4, p. 887.)

Fruit-trees are not exempt from taxation as "growing crops," under California Const., art. 13, § 1. Cottle v. Spitzer, 65 Cal. 456; 52 Am. Rep. 305. Mechanics' Tools.-A printer is a mechanic within the meaning of the term as used in the Iowa Code exempting the tools of any mechanic from taxation, and his press materials, etc., constitute his tools, and as such are exempt. Smith v. Osburn, 53 Iowa 474. But it has been held in Mississippi that, a printing press owned by a practical printer, editor and publisher of a newspaper, and necessary to his business as such printer and publisher, is not exempt under Mississippi Code, § 468, which provides that “the tools of any mechanic necessary for carrying on his trade" shall be exempt. Frantz v. Dobson, 63 Miss. 631; 60 Am. Rep. 68. See also TOOLS.

Mines and Mining Claims.-The constitution of Colorado provided that mines and mining claims should be exempt from taxation for the period of ten years from the date of the adoption of the constitution," and thereafter may be taxed as provided by law." It was held that legislation was required to render such property taxable at the expiration of

the ten years. In re House Resolution (Colo. 1886), 21 Pac. Rep. 471.

A parcel of land was entered and paid for as a placer mining claim, and entered in the United States land office as a mineral entry. But within a few months after the issuance of the patent, the land was made a subdivision of the city of Leadville, a map of such subdivision, showing its division into blocks and lots, being filed in the recorder's office of the proper county. There was no evidence that the lot was in fact a mine or mining claim. It was held that the land was not exempt from taxation under the Colorado statute exempting mines or mining claims bearing gold or silver or other precious metals. Dyke v. White, 17 Colo. 296.

An exemption of mines and mining claims does not cover the flumes or machinery necessary to work them. Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 148; Gold Hill v. Caledonia Silver Min. Co., 5 Sawy. (U. S.) 575

Mortgages. An exemption of mortgages from taxation will not be held to include so-called building association mortgages, of which the sum to be paid eventually is uncertain. Appeal Tax Ct. v. Rice, 50 Md. 302.

A New Jersey statute provided that "hereafter no mortgage or debt secured thereby shall be assessed for taxation, unless a deduction therefor shall have been claimed by the owner of the land and allowed by the assessors." This was held not to apply to a mortgage upon exempt lands. State v. Lantz, 53 N. J. L. 578.

Under the Vermont statute exempting from taxation personal estate owned by an inhabitant of that state, which is situated and taxed in another state, a debt evidenced by a promissory note owned by an inhabitant of Vermont was held to be taxable there, although secured on land in another state, where the mortgagee's interest is taxed as real estate, the note and mortgage being in the possession of their owner's agent, who lived where the land was situated. Bullock v. Guilford, 59 Vt. 516.

Capital of Non-residents.-Under the New York statute exempting agents of moneyed corporations, or capitalists, from taxation" for any moneys in their possession, or under their control, transmitted to them for the purpose of investment, or otherwise, and exempting demands belonging to the non-residents of the state sent to or deposited in this state for collection," it was held that

foreign capital sent within the state for investment is protected from taxation, whether invested or uninvested, and whether the securities received therefor are taken out of, or remain in the state for collection. Williams v. Wayne County, 78 N. Y. 561. Under the above statute, money sent into the state for investment is exempt from taxation as well after the death of such non-resident as before. People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 560, aff'g 105 N. Y. 629; People v. Coleman (Supreme C‡.), 14 N. Y. Supp. 565.

1. State v. Maginnis, 26 La. Ann. 558; Perry County v. Selma, etc., R. Co., 58 Ala. 546; Maguire v. Mobile County, 71 Ala. 401.

In Morton v. Comptroller Gen'l, 4 S. Car. 430, it is said that three things are essential to the levy of a tax: first, the ascertainment of a sum certain, or that can be made certain, to be imposed upon the collective body of taxpayers; second, a legal imposition of that sum as an obligation on the collective body of taxpayers; and third, an apportionment of such sum among individual taxpayers so as to ascertain the part

or share that each should bear. And

see People v. Brooklyn, N. Y. 419; 55 Am. Dec. 256; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116; Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274.

In Moore v. Foote, 32 Miss. 469, the term "levy," when used in relation to county taxes, was held to include not only the ascertainment of the amount necessary to be raised, but also the performance of all such acts as would authorize the tax collector to proceed to collect it.

Where the levy is by a subordinate political division, it commonly consists of two distinct acts of legislation: first, that of the state giving the power to tax; and second, that of the local authority laying the tax under the power so given. Doe v. McQuilkin, 8 Black f. (Ind.) 335; Hawkins v. Jonesboro, 63

Ga. 527; Cruikshanks v. Charleston, I McCord (S. Car.) 360. And see Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. Cass County, 16 Neb. 136.

A law authorizing or directing a city council to levy a tax does not execute itself. It merely enjoins a duty upon the city council, and the tax cannot be enforced in the absence of an actual levy by the council. State v. Humphreys, 25 Ohio St. 520.

Where corporate authorities are required to levy and collect a sufficient tax to pay interest annually, and to liquidate the principal of a specified debt within the time specified for its payment, it is a standing and continuing levy so long as the bonds remain. unpaid. Davis . Brace, 82 Ill. 542.

2. Sheldon v. Van Buskirk, 2 N. Y. 473; Waterman v. Harkness, 2 Mo. App. 494. In Valle v. Fargo, 1 Mo. App. 344, the word "levy was said to be synonymous with "collect," or "raised by execution."

3. Walcott v. People,17 Mich. 68; San Francisco, etc., R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12; State v. McEvery, 75 Mo. 530.

The Louisiana Constitution confers authority to levy a tax for levee purposes directly upon levee commissioners within their respective districts, requiring no action of the legislature, except the division of the state into levee districts, and a provision for the election or appointment of commission

ers.

Davis v. Green, 40 La. Ann. 281. 4. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Board of Assessors, 35 La. Ann. 1154; Forman v. Board of Assessors, 35 La. Ann. 825; Lott v. Ross, 38 Ala. 156; State v. Mobile County, 73 Ala. 65; Bettison v. Budd, 21 Ark. 578; Cairo, etc., R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 142; Vanover v. Davis, 27 Ga. 354; Norris 7. Russell, 5 Cal. 249; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646; State v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 163: Ellis v. Peck, 45 Iowa 114; Early v. Whittingham, 43

Iowa 162; Ryerson v. Laketon Tp., 52 Mich. 510; Folkerts v. Power, 42 Mich. 283; McCready v. Sexton, 29 Iowa 356; Am. Rep. 214; State v. Hagood, 13 S. Car. 46; State v. Platt, 2 S. Car. 150; 16 Am. Rep. 647; Cruikshanks v. Charleston, 1 McCord (S. Car.) 360; State v. Charleston, 2 Spears (S. Car.) 623; Morris v. Tinker, 60 Ga. 466; Allen v. Peoria, etc., R. Co., 44 Ill. 85; Webster v. People, 98 Ill. 343; Doe v. McQuilkin, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 335; Bright. McCullough, 27 Ind. 223; Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472; Zanesville v. Richards, 5 Ohio St. 590; Bangs 7. Snow, I Mass. 181; Bullock v. Curry, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 171. And see Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272; 7 Am. Dec. 145; Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 123; Virginia, etc., R. Co. v. Washington County, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 471; Richmond v. Daniel, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 385; Lisbon v. Bath, 21 N. H. 319; Simmons v. Wilson, 66 N. Car. 336; Columbia v. Guest, 3 Head (Tenn.) 413.

1. People v. Kings County, 52 N. Y. 556; Cruger v. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 107; Steckert v. East Saginaw, 22 Mich. 110; State v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 74 Mo. 166; Brodie v. McCabe, 33 Ark. 690; Dean v. Lufkin, 54 Tex. 265. And see Parker v. Wayne County, 104 N. Car. 166.

A tax levied before a constitutional provision limiting the amount to be raised by tax takes effect, is not affected by it. Burlington, etc., R. Co. v. York County, 7 Neb. 487. And in State v. Maginnis, 26 La. Ann. 558, it was held to be no ground for resisting a tax that the state debt had reached the amount limited by the constitution, unless the object for which the tax was levied, or the law authorizing it, was unconstitutional.

In Spring v. Olney, 78 Ill. 101, a proviso in a clause of a statute that "no tax shall be levied under this section unless two-thirds of all the aldermen elected shall vote in favor of the same," was held not to apply to the whole section, but only to the tax mentioned in that particular clause.

2. See Lamoreaux v. O'Rourk, 3

Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 15; Gilbert v. Huston, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 223; State v. Woodside, 8 Ired. (N. Car.) 104; Wells v. Austin, 59 Vt. 157.

The levy of a tax being a legislative and not a judicial function, a court can neither make, nor cause to be made, a new assessment, if the one complained of is erroneous. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575.

Where a city is authorized to levy a tax upon such wards or lots as a jury of six, selected by the council, shall determine according to the benefit received, such proceeding is not a jury trial, but a special proceeding in the nature of a commission for a public purpose, and the voice of a majority will prevail in making the assessment. Soens v. Racine, 10 Wis. 271. See also Steele v. Blanton, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 514; People v. Bennett, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 480.

The action of the legislature should be such that no further legislation will be necessary to authorize the collection of the tax. Morton . Comptroller Gen'l, 4 S. Car. 430.

3. Edwards v. People, 88 Ill. 340; Mustard v. Hoppess, 69 Ind. 324; State v. Maginnis, 26 La. Ann. 558; Wells v. Burbank, 17 N. H. 393; People v. Queens County, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 195. And see State v. Hagood, 13 S. Car. 46; Morton v. Comptroller Gen'l, S. Car. 430; San Francisco, etc., R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12.

A levy imposed by the justices of the county courts, who are not elected, but appointed, is not contrary to a provision in the bill of rights that men cannot be taxed for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives. Case of County Levy, 5 Call (Va.) 139; Lockhart v. Harrington, 1 Hawks (N. Car.) 408.

Authority given by the legislature to certain commissioners, to ascertain and determine the amount of a particular indebtedness, is not an exercise of judicial power by the legislature. Shaw v. Dennis, 10 III. 405. And in Salem Turnpike, etc., Corp. v. Essex County, 100 Mass. 282, it was held that a statute, providing for laying out the road and bridges of a turnpike, as a public highway, and for the appointment of com

But see State v. Elizabeth, 44 N. J. L. 571.

The people affected by the formation of a taxing district need not be consulted as to its extent. Prince George's County v. Bladensburg, 51 Md. 465; Kuhn v. Board of Education, 4 W. Va. 499. But where assent to union into one taxing district is required of several municipalities, it must consist of the assent of a majority in each of the municipalities to be affected. People v. Salomon, 51 Ill. 37.

The courts cannot interfere with the operation of statutes levying and apportioning taxes, when no question of legislative power is involved. Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; Broadway Baptist Church . McAtee, 8 Bush (Ky.) 508; 8 Am. Dec. 480; Abergust v. Louisville, 2 Bush (Ky.) 271; Layton v. New Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 515; Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. 652; Virginia City v. ChollarPotosi, etc., Min. Co., 2 Nev. 86; State 7. Fuller, 34 N. J. L. 227; Hingham, etc., Bridge, etc., Corp. v. Norfolk County, 6 Allen (Mass.) 353

In Re Flower, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 158, it was held that in the levy and apportionment of the burden of a tax, the legislature may refer to a void assessment, for the purpose of fixing the amount and the property selected.

1. Shelby Co. Judge v. Shelby R. Co., 5 Bush (Ky.) 225: Atty. Gen'l v. Cambridge, 16 Gray (Mass.) 247; Salem Turnpike, etc., Corp. v. Essex County, 100 Mass. 282.

In Lexington v. McQuillan, 9 Dana (Ky.) 513; 35 Am. Dec. 159, it was held that each square, so far as its streets and sidewalks are concerned, may be considered as a distinct municipality or local public.

2. Woodbridge v. Detroit, 8 Mich. 274; Williams v. Cammack, 27 Miss. 209; 61 Am. Dec. 508; People v. Central Pac. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398; Updyke v. Wright, 81 Ill. 49; Shaw v. Dennis, 10 Ill. 405; Connell v. Connersville, 8 Ind. 358; Shelby County Judge v. Shelby R. Co., 5 Bush (Ky.) 225; Lexington v. McQuillan, 9 Dana (Ky.) 513; 35 Am. Dec. 159; Malchus v. Highlands, 4

Bush (Ky.) 547; Waterville v. Kennebec County, 59 Me. 80; State v. Englewood, 41 N. J. L. 154; Brown v. Hertford, 100 N. Car. 92; St. Louis v. Speck, 67 Mo. 403; People v. Lawrence, 36. Barb. (N. Y.) 177; People v. Haws, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 69; People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532; People v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419; 55 Am. Dec. 256; Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St. 35; State v. Fayette County, 37 Ohio St. 526; Philadelphia. v. Field, 58 Pa. St. 320; Luehrman v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 2 Lea (Tenn.) 425; Langhorne v. Robinson, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 661. But see State v. Chamberlain, 37 N. J. L. 388; State v.. Fuller, 39 N. J. L. 576; Morgan v. Elizabeth, 44 N. J. L. 571.

The legislature has the right to impose local taxation for local purposes. upon any district or extent of territory less than the whole state, whether the people to be affected are citizens of the same county, or members of the same corporation, or residents of the same political division of the state, or not. Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. 652. And see Daily v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367.

In Northampton v. Hampshire County, 145 Mass. 108, a statute providing that the funds of a corporation organized for charitable purposes should, for the purposes of taxation, be equally apportioned among eight different towns, was upheld.

3. See Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen (Mass.) 500; Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen (Mass.) 268; Bright v. McCullough, 27 Ind. 223; Chandler v. Reynolds, 19 Kan. 249; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1; St. Louis v. Speck, 67 Mo. 403; State v. U. S., etc., Express Co., 60 N. H. 219; Gilman v.. Sheboygan, 2 Black (U. S.) 510; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 295.

A tax levy made outside the statelimits is without authority of law, and void. Marion County v. Barker, 25 Kan. 258.

4. There may be a discrimination in. the subjects of taxation, but there must. be uniformity in the tax upon the selected subjects; no individual's property