In State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 25, the court said (p. 27): "It may be stated as a general proposition that a payment, under compulsion, of money unlawfully demanded does not conclude the party paying. * ** Nor is it necessary, in order to constitute compulsory as distinguished from voluntary payment, that the unlawful demand be made by an officer who is prepared to enforce it by process. There may be that kind and degree of necessity or coercion which justifies and virtually requires payment to be made of the illegal demands of a private person who has it in his power to seriously prejudice the property rights of another, and to impose upon the latter the risk of suffering great loss if the demand be not complied with."

In this case the estate consisted of stocks, bonds, promissory notes, open accounts, unclosed deals upon the board of trade, life insurance and one hundred and fourteen tracts of real estate, upon some of which there were due and unpaid taxes and special assessments, and the estate owed large sums of money evidenced by obligations which were maturing and some of which had matured. It was therefore clearly necessary for the best interests of the estate that the executors act, and act promptly. To do so it was necessary that they have the evidence of their authority to represent the estate in their possession. They could obtain the evidence of such authority only by submitting to the payment of an illegal exaction amounting to a large sum of money, or by paying the same under protest and suing to recover back the amount so paid. They chose, as we think they had a right to do, the latter

course.

Finding no reversible error in this record the judgment of the superior court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

MICHAEL R. DRENNEN

V.

THE PEOPLE ex rel. Lewis C. Price, County Treasurer.

Opinion filed October 23, 1906.

I. SPECIAL TAXATION-printed delinquent list must be filed as part of records of the county court. Filing the printed delinquent list and publisher's certificate "in the office of the county clerk and ex officio clerk of the county court" is not a compliance with the statute requiring the same to be filed as part of the records of the county court.

2. SAME—what does not aid defect in filing the delinquent list. Where the paper containing the delinquent list is marked, "Filed May 31, '04.-A. C. Hendee, Clerk," the fact that its due publication is sworn to before the clerk who signed his name to the jurat "A. L. Hendee, Clerk of the County Court," does not aid the defect as respects the failure to show the filing of the paper as part of the records of the county court.

3. SAME advertisement should show years for which taxes are due. A statement in the advertisement of a delinquent list that the taxes remaining unpaid are for certain specified years "and previous years," is not a compliance with the statute requiring the advertisement to contain the list of lands upon which taxes remain due and unpaid “and the year or years for which the same are due."

WRIT OF ERROR to the County Court of Lake county; the Hon. D. L. JONES, Judge, presiding.

GEORGE W. WILBUR, for plaintiff in error.

LESLIE P. HANNA, State's Attorney, and SMOOT & EYER, for defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE FARMER delivered the opinion of the court: This is a writ of error to the county court of Lake county to reverse a judgment and order of sale entered by default in that court against certain property in Highland Park for a special tax for the construction of a sidewalk.

It is first objected that the printed list of delinquent lands and lots, with the certificate, under oath, of the publisher as

to due publication as required by law, and which the law requires to be presented by the collector to the county court when judgment is prayed and a copy thereof filed as a part of the records of said court, was not filed with the clerk of the county court nor as a part of the records of said court. The record shows it was "filed in the office of the county clerk and ex officio clerk of the county court of said county." This is not a compliance with the statute requiring it to be filed "as a part of the records of said court."

It is contended by defendant in error that as the law required the list to be filed as a part of the records of the county court, it must be presumed that the clerk did his duty and filed it in the office of the clerk of the county court. We think no such presumption can be indulged in the state of this record. If the recital was that the certificate was filed in the office of the county clerk, with the addition of no other words, it would clearly not be a compliance with the statute. The words "and ex officio clerk of the county court," immediately following "county clerk," leave it very uncertain as to where the list was filed. Whether it was filed in the office of the county clerk, who is also ex officio clerk of the county court, or whether it was filed in the office of the county clerk and in the office of the cx officio clerk of the county court, is by no means clear. In McChesney v. People, 174 Ill. 46, it was held that the act requiring the list to be filed as a part of the records of the county court is mandatory and essential in order to give the court jurisdiction. In that case it was said: "The offices [of county clerk and clerk of the county court] are separate and distinct, although by the statute they are filled by the same person. In the different offices he has charge of two different and separate sets of records pertaining to different jurisdictions. The records in the office of the county clerk are not records of the county court, and filing a paper in that office does not make it a part of the records of that court." The original paper containing the delinquent list has been certified up to us, and the file

mark thereon is: "Filed May 31, /04.-A. C. Hendee, clerk." The fact that its due publication was sworn to before the clerk, who signed his name to the jurat “A. L. Hendee, clerk of the county court," cannot, as contended by the defendant in error, aid the defect. McChesney v. People, supra, was approved and followed in Glos v. Woodard, 202 Ill. 480, Nowlin v. People, 216 id. 543, and Glos v. Hanford, 212 id. 261.

It is next objected that the published delinquent list was defective in not complying with the statute requiring the publication of the year or years for which the delinquent taxes are due. On the first page of the paper containing the delinquent list, and preceding the first column of said list, is the notice of the collector that he would apply to the county court of Lake county, to the June term, 1904, "for judgment against the lands and lots mentioned and described in the following list of delinquent lands and lots, for the taxes, special taxes, back taxes, personal taxes, special assessments, interest and costs due severally thereon for the years 1903 and 1904, and previous years when unpaid, and for an order to sell said lands and lots for the satisfaction thereof." At the end of said delinquent list said county treasurer and ex officio collector of taxes certified "that the foregoing is a list of delinquent lands and lots upon which taxes remain due and unpaid for the years 1902 and 1903 and previous years.' The statement that application for judgment would be made for the taxes for certain specified years and previous years is not a compliance with the statute that "said advertisement * * ** shall contain a list of the delinquent lands and lots upon which the taxes or special assessments remain due and unpaid * and the year or years for which the same are due." Gage v. People, 188 Ill. 92.

*

Some other objections are made to the validity of this judgment, but as it must be reversed for the reasons indicated we deem it unnecessary to discuss them.

The judgment of the county court is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

JAMES H. MAY

V.

THE CITY OF CHICAGO.

Opinion filed October 23, 1906.

I. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-eight-hour-day ordinance applying to manual labor does not cover clerical work. An ordinance providing that eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work "for all employees performing manual labor for the city," etc., does not apply to clerical work in the city collector's office.

2. SAME―clerk employed at regular salary must perform all the duties of the office. A regular employee of a municipal corporation, employed at a regular salary, is bound to perform the duties of his office for the compensation fixed, even though additional duties are imposed upon him by statute or ordinance subsequently to his employment.

3. SAME when an appropriation does not cover regular clerks. An appropriation for "extra clerks for special assessment work in the city collector's office" does not cover regular clerks employed in such office.

4. SAME-city officer cannot create liability against city unless appropriation has been made. A promise by a city collector to pay his regular clerks for working overtime creates no liability against the city unless an appropriation for that purpose has been previously made.

5. SAME-one dealing with city is charged with notice of the limitations of its liability. A person dealing with a municipal corporation is charged with knowledge of the limitations of its liability upon contracts attempted to be entered into by any of its officials.

APPEAL from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;-heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. W. MACK, Judge, presiding.

HARRY M. FISHER, for appellant:

The city was bound by the collector's promise to pay for the extra time, and the city had the power to enter into such