the killing of stock of a stranger which come across the lands of an adjoining proprietor upon the railroad track through an open gate at a point where the company has such a fence as is required

section 43 of the railroad law (Wag. Stat., p. 310), it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the premises of the adjoining proprietor are not enclosed by a lawful fence. (Following Berry v. R. R. Co., 65 Mo., 172.)

If the adjoining proprietor is satisfied with a sliding panel or gate at his farm-crossing instead of a gate hung and fastened with a latch or hook, as prescribed by section 43, no one else has a right to complain.

A railroad company is not liable, under this section, for the killing of stock which come upon the track through a gate left open by some one else without the consent of the company. Harrington v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., Appellant, 71 Missouri Reports, 384. (April Term, 1880.)

The doctrine of Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S., 217, that immunity from taxation does not pass by a sale under a mortgage "on the property and franchises of a railroad company," reaffirmed. East Tennessee, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hamblen County, U. S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1880.

Property assessed for taxation must be described by reference to government surveys, or by metes and bounds, or, if land is divided into lots, then by reference to authenticated plats. If a piece of land is designated as a lot, when there is no plat to which reference can be had to determine from what tract it has been formed, no judgment can be rendered against it for taxes, as it is not capable of location.

While a government survey with a given number is a description of land well recognized, and which can be easily located, yet a lot therein of a certain number does not represent any ascertainable part of the survey, unless a plat has been made and recorded by competent authority, which divides the survey into lots.

The revenue laws make it the duty of the owner, where a tract of land is divided into parcels so that it cannot be described without metes and bounds, to cause such lands to be surveyed and platted into lots, the plat to be certified and recorded; and the law provides that, if the owner shall neglect or refuse to cause this to be done within thirty days after being notified by the county clerk, such clerk shall cause the survey to be made and recorded, and the expense thereof to be added to the tax levied on such property. When the land is so surveyed and platted, and the plat recorded, the lots may be assessed according to their numbers.

A survey and platting of a tract of land by a deputy county surveyor, at the instance of an assessor, without any notice by the county clerk to the owner, or not at the request of the clerk, the

plat not being recorded, is not a compliance with the statute, and such survey and platting are unauthorized and binding on no one, and will not change the original description of the land. People ex rel. Weber v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 96 Illinois Reports, 369. (October 2, 1880.)

Under sec. 2, art. IX., of the constitution of 1875, all that can be exempted from taxation on account of forest and fruit-tree culture is the increased value to the land in consequence thereof.

Accidental omissions of property, in making assessments for taxation, do not invalidate the tax upon other property.

Omissions or exemptions purposely made under a misapprehension of the law, and in the belief that the property is not taxable, is not a sufficient ground for enjoining the collection of a tax upon other property otherwise legally imposed.

Under the law of this State, where a tax-payer feels himself wronged by the assessment or valuation of his own or other property for taxation, he has an adequate legal remedy by a resort to the county board of equalization; and neglecting this, he can have no standing in a court of equity for relief. Burlington, etc., R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Seward County, 10 Nebraska Reports, 211. (January Term, 1880.)

INDEX.

ACT OF GOD.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 4, 5

AD INTERIM ORDER.
See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 13.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See EMINENT DOMAIN, 21.

ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 24.

AGENT.

See MASTER And Servant, 10.

1. The track was unfenced.

ANIMAL.

The animal was picketed in an enclosed field, but
it had broken loose. Held, that the company was liable. Kansas Pacific R.
R. Co. v. Wiggins, 651.

2. In order to recover for the killing of stock which come across the lands of an
adjoining proprietor upon the railroad track through an open gate at a point
where the company has such a fence as is required by law, it is incumbent
upon the plaintiff to show that the premises of the adjoining proprietor are
not enclosed by a lawful fence.

3. A company is not liable for the killing of stock which come upon the track
through a gate left open by some one else without the consent of the com-
pany. Harrington v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 651.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 4; EMINENT DOMAIN, 8; FENCE.

ATTORNEY.

See GENERAL SOLICITOR.

BAGGAGE.

See CARRIER.

BALLAST OF TRACK.

See MASTER AND SERVANT, 24.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 10.

BOND.

1. Commissioners were empowered to subscribe for stock in a company when
its road should be constructed through a certain village. Held, the construc-
struction of the road was a condition precedent to the exercise by the com-
missioners of their power to make the subscription. Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co.
v. Falconer, 593.

2. A contract, therefore, between the company and the commissioners, whereby
the latter assumed to bind the town to subscribe for stock when the road
should be so constructed, being ultra vires, no rights of the company were

impaired by the amendment to the Constitution of the State which prohibited
all municipal aid to corporations. Id.

3. Neither the charter of the city of Louisiana, Missouri, approved March 12,
1870, construed with art. 10, sec. 14, of the Constitution adopted in 1865, nor
sec. 17, chap. 63, of the General Statutes of 1865, taken in connection with an
amendment to that chapter adopted as sec. 52, March 24, 1870, authorized the
city to subscribe to the capital stock of a railroad company organized under
the laws of Illinois. Allen v. Louisiana, 599.

4. A popular vote at an election held without authority of law does not bind the
municipality nor confer the power to make the subscription.

5. Where bonds recite upon their face that they are issued in pursuance of a
given authority, the corporation is estopped as against a bona fide holder from
proving such recital untrue. Bonham v. Needles, 642.

6. A town subscribed for stock, and issued its bonds, each reciting that it
"shall be valid only when it is thereon duly certified that the conditions upon
which it was voted, issued, and deposited by said town have been performed.”
Held, that the certificate on the bonds is in proper form, estopping the town
from denying their validity, and placing them in a condition to be put on the
market as commercial paper. Menasha . Hazard, 571.

7. Where, before the subscription and bonds were voted, the company was
authorized to consolidate with other companies constructing connecting lines,
and such consolidation was effected: Held, that the issue of the bonds to the
consolidated company was lawful. Id.

8. The P. C. & F. D. M. R. R. Co. was incorporated by the Legislature of Mis-
souri in 1860; by its charter the county court of any county through which
the road was located, and any city or town, were authorized to subscribe for
stock, and to issue bonds to pay therefor; by another section (§ 7) a provision
is made for taking a vote of the taxable inhabitants of a strip of country on
either side of the road, and if a majority vote in favor of a tax to pay for
stock, it is made the duty of the court to levy and collect the tax. Held, that
the charter gave no authority to the taxable inhabitants of a strip of country
along the road to vote for the issue of bonds, or for an issue of bonds upon a
vote in favor of subscribing for stock, but only authorized the levy and col-
lection of a special tax to pay for stock. Dodge v. County of Platte, 583.
9. A new Constitution was adopted by said State in 1865, which prohibited the
General Assembly from authorizing any county, city, or town from becoming
a stockholder in, or loaning its credit to any company, unless two thirds of the
qualified voters should assent thereto (art. 11, § 14), but it was provided (art.
11, § 3) that all statute laws then in force not inconsistent with the Constitu-
tion should continue in force. In 1868 an act was passed by the Legislature
of said State authorizing the subscription for stock of a railroad company
upon a vote of two thirds of the qualified voters, at an election for that pur-
pose, in favor thereof, and an issue of bonds in payment. In July, 1869, in
proceedings under the said charter, an election was ordered in a strip of land
described as "part of the municipal township of Greene;" the election was
held August 17, 1869, at C. P., in the district described, and a majority voting
at the election voted in favor of a tax; this vote was subsequently declared
by the county court to be a nullity. In 1870 an act was passed amending the
act of 1868; it contained a provision (§ 7) declaring that in all cases where by
the provisions of the charter of any railroad company the "taxable inhabitants
of any portion of any municipal township had or might thereafter vote to take
stock, they should have all the privileges conferred by the act of 1868 upon
counties or townships, and the same power and duty was given and imposed
upon the county court to issue bonds, etc., to be paid, however, by tax upon
the districts voting. Thereupon, and in 1871, the county court of the county
including said township of Greene granted an order reciting the election so
held, and directing the issuing of county bonds; bonds were accordingly
issued. In an action to recover the amount of certain coupons to said bonds.
Held, that the act of 1870 did not legalize the vote at such election; that said.
provision of the act, if it authorized the issue of bonds in such cases, was in
contravention of the State Constitution; that the constitutional provision con-