time, when the act under which the tax was levied furnishes no limitation upon the exercise of the power.1 3. By Whom Made. In the absence of constitutional provision, the legislature may provide for such agencies for the assessment of taxes as it may see fit.2 The agencies provided for must be constituted in the manner prescribed by law; and the assessment must be made by the officers duly elected or appointed for that purpose.3 When the constituted authorities neglect or refuse to act, it is within legislative power to provide for the performance of their duties by other officers and instrumentalities;4 though the act of filling an office exhausts the power until the removal or dismissal of the incumbent in the manner prescribed by law. It is essential to the validity of the list as a basis of taxation, and therefore to the validity of the tax itself, that the assessment should be made by officers having competent authority, and the qualifications re Ind. 306; Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1; Ayers v. Moulton, 51 Vt. 115; Woodward v. French, 31 Vt. 337. Extension of Time.-In Brigins v. Chandler, 60 Miss. 862, it was held that a statute extending the time for assessment applied only to cases in which the law had not been complied with. 1. Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; Anderson . Mayfield (Ky. 1892), 19 S. W. Rep. 598; State v. Northern Belle Mill, etc., Co., 15 Nev. 385. And see American Coal Co. v. Alleghany County, 59 Md. 185. 2. North Carolina R. Co. v. Alamance, 82 N. Car. 259; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 98 Ill. 350. And see Sawyer v. Dooley, 21 Nev. 390. 3. Republic L. Ins. Co. v. Pollak, 75 Ill. 292; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Surrell, S8 Ill. 535; Felamthal v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 21; People v. Lots in Ashley, 122 Ill. 297; Twombly v. Kimbrough, 24 Ark. 459; People v. Hastings, 29 Cal. 449; People v. White, 47 Cal. 616; Reily v. Lancaster, 39 Cal. 354; Hawkins v. Jonesboro, 63 Ga. 527; Williams v. Corcoran, 46 Cal. 553; Birch v. Fisher, 13 S. & R. (Pa.) 208; Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Hays, 118 Ind. 214; People v. Lothrop, 3 Colo. 428; State v. Segoine, 53 N. J. L. 339. In Pensacola v. Bell, 22 Fla. 469, it was held that an assessment roll commenced by one assessor and perfected by another, is valid. A city ordinance authorizing the appointment of assessors by the comptroller, confers the authority upon the comptroller as such, and not upon the individual who holds the office at the time of the enactment. People v. Allen, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 203. 4. Du Page County v. Jenks, 65 Ill. 275; Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Carroll County, 41 Iowa 153. And see Farrington v. New England Invest. Co., 1 N. Dak. 102; Bode v. New England Invest. Co., 1 N. Dak. 121. Under the Maine statutes, when no assessors are elected, the selectmen must, each of them, be sworn as an assessor before they can legally assess a tax. They cannot make an assessment as officers de facto, which will sustain an action for taxes. Dresden v. Goud, 75 Me. 298. Under a power to appoint a successor to a delinquent assessor, the delinquent may not be appointed as his own successor. But a person so appointed would be an officer de facto as to third persons. Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1. See also Guyer v. Andrews, 11 Ill. 444. 5. See PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 19, p. 378. See also People v. Woodruff, 32 N. Y. 355; Smith v. New York, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 57; 47 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 277; People v. Stevens, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y. Ct. App.) 139. In Mix v. People, 116 Ill. 265, it was held that a board of supervisors has no power to appoint a committee to reassess lands previously assessed by the proper body. 6. Rood v. Mitchell County, 39 Iowa 444; Bailey v. Fisher, 38 Iowa 229; Du Page County v. Jenks, 65 Ill. 275; Paldi v. Paldi, 84 Mich. 346; Williams v. Corcoran, 46 Cal. 553; People v. Parker, 117 N. Y. 86; Birch v. Fisher, quired by law. This rule, however, is qualified by the general principles applicable to the validity of acts of de facto officers.2 The duties of assessors are confined to the listing and valuation of the property; their authority cannot be delegated, and the assessment, in the absence of a statute authorizing it, cannot be made by a deputy, though the listing or other clerical duty may be.5 The means and measures by which an assessor has reached 13 S. & R. (Pa.) 208. And see Stockman v. Robbins, So Ind. 195; People v. Ward, 105 Ill. 620. In Farrington v. New England Investment Co., 1 N. Dak. 102, it was held that an assessment of the proper officer, in the proper time and manner, which is not copied into the assessment roll until after the assessor has resigned, is not void in equity where it appears that the assessment was in fact copied accurately. 1. Ayers v. Moulton, 51 Vt. 115; Coit v. Wells, 2 Vt. 318; Isaacs v. Wiley, 12 Vt. 674; Lynde v. Dummerstoy, 61 Vt. 48; Orneville v. Palmer, 79 Me. 472; Payson v. Hall, 30 Me. 319; Dresden v. Goud, 75 Me. 298; Bowler v. Brown, 84 Me. 376; Gould v. Monroe, 61 Me. 544; Pike v. Hanson, 9 N. H. 491; Ainsworth v. Dean, 21 N. H. 400; Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb. 367; Morrill v. Taylor, 6 Neb. 245; Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; Parker v. Overman, 18 How. (U. S.) 137; Martin v. Barbour, 34 Fed. Rep. 701. The oath taken when the list is completed is not sufficient. Ayers v. Moulton, 51 Vt. 115; Walker v. Burlington, 56 Vt. 131. In Nichols v. Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 189; 60 Am. Dec. 636, it was held that an assessment will not be held to be invalid merely because it does not appear that the committee who made it were freeholders. 2. See Washington County v. Miller, 14 Iowa 584; Peirce v. Weare, 41 Iowa 378; Equalization Board v. Landown ers, 51 Ark. 516; Barton v. Lattourette, 55 Ark. S1; Moore v. Turner, 43 Ark. 243; Radcliffe v. Scruggs, 46 Ark. 96; Scott v. Watkins, 22 Ark. 556; Murphy 7. Shepard, 52 Ark. 356; Hawkins v. Jonesboro, 63 Ga. 527; Bath v. Reed, 78 Me. 276; Koontz v. Hancock, 64 Md. 134: Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113; State v. Metz, 31 N. J. L. 365; State v. Brown, 53 N. J. L. 162; State v. Ocean Tp., 39 N. J. L. 75; Ray v. Murdock, 36 Miss. 692; Kissimmee City v. Cannon, 26 Fla. 3; Merriam v. Dovey, 25 Neb. 618; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Har rison County, 54 Tex. 119; Guyer v. Andrews, 11 Ill. 494; Ronkendorf v. Taylor, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 349. And see PUBLIC OFFICERS, vol. 19, p. 378; De FACTO OFFICERS, vol. 5, p. 93. It has been held that an assessor who neglects or fails to take the prescribed oath of office is nevertheless an officer de facto, and that as to third persons his acts are valid and binding. State v. Perkins, 24 N. J. L. 409; State v. Pierson, 47 N. J. L. 247; Sullivan 7. State, 66 Ill. 75. See also Lord v. Parker, 83 Me. 530; and cases cited supra this note. It is not necessary that the assessor should be sworn for each case. Turpin v. Eagle Creek, etc., Road Co., 48 Ind. 45. 3. They cannot levy a tax. Fournet, 30 La. Ann. 1103. State v. The assessor and his deputies have implied authority to administer all necessary oaths in connection with tax-lists. State v. Reynolds, 108 Ind. 353. 4. Stokes v. State, 24 Miss. 621; Snell v. Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa 564; Merchants' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 40 La. Ann. 371. And see Adams v. Justices, 21 Ga. 206. In Covington v. Rockingham, 93 N. Car. 134, it was held that a tax list made up by one who is not a member of the taxing body, but who acts under its direction and as its agent, is not thereby made invalid. Farrington v. New England Invest. Co., 1 N. Dak. 102; Bode v. New England Invest. Co., 1 N. Dak. 121. In Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 7 Kan. 210, it was held that a deputy county clerk, in the absence of his principal, may act as one of the board of appraisers and assessors to assess railroad property, as provided by statute in Kansas. 5. Snell v. Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa 564. In Woodman v. Auditor Gen'l, 52 Mich. 30, it was held that the listing of property is clerical, but the ascertaining and determining of its value is judicial, and cannot be dispensed with in a conclusion will not be inquired into judicially. Where a board is required to act in making the assessment, all its members must have been duly chosen and qualified;2 but when thus chosen and qualified, a majority of their number may generally act.3 4. How Made-a. GENERAL RULE.-Subject to constitutional restrictions, it is for the legislature to provide the method and mode of assessing property for purposes of taxation. The assessment must be made in accordance with these provisions and with the securities and solemnities provided by statute.5 See making a valid assessment roll. also Paldi v. Paldi, 84 Mich. 346. 1. Snell v. Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa 564; Du Page County v. Jenks, 65 Ill. 275. A provision that the assessors shall make out the assessment roll by wards, showing the taxable property of each ward separately, is complied with by the assessor of each ward making an assessment of the property in his ward, the assessors then coming together as a body and comparing their several lists and agreeing upon the correctness of the whole. Dean v. Gleason, 16 Wis. I. 2. Williamsburg v. Lord, 51 Me. 599; Jordan v. Hopkins, 85 Me. 159; Downing v. Rugar, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 178; 34 Am. Dec. 223; People v. Parker, 117 N. Y. 86; Lemoreaux v. O'Rourk, 3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 15. Where one assessor has not been qualified, the other two cannot assess a tax. Machiasport v. Small, 77 Me. 109. 3. Cooley v. O'Connor, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 391; Schenk v. Peay, 1 Dill. (U. S.) 267; Metcalf v. Messenger, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 329; State v. McIntock, 7 Ired. (N. Car.) 68; Wells v. Austin, 59 Vt. 157. When one of three assessors, after due notice, refuses to attend and act in assessing a tax, the other two may proceed without him. Williams v. School Dist. No. 1, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 75. A majority, however, is necessary. One assessor cannot make the assessment. Metcalf v. Messenger, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 325; Oteri v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 374. See also Belfast Sav. Bank v. Kennebec Land, etc., Co., 73 Me. 404. Where the record shows that a number of officers were present at the time of the assessment, it will be presumed that they constituted a majority of the board. State v. McIntock, 7 Ired. (N. Car.) 68. Where the board is required to act jointly, all must be present and act. People v. Hagar, 49 Čal. 229. 4. Marsh v. Clark County, 42 Wis. 501; Smith v. Cleveland, 17 Wis. 556; Dean v. Gleason, 16 Wis. 1; San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, 87 Cal. 499; Du Page County v. Jenks, 65 Ill. 275; State v. Eastabrook, 3 Nev. 173; Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 210; Williams v. Albany County, 122 U. S. 154 It is generally required that assessments shall be made up with certainty, that the taxpayer may know for what and how much he is taxed. Goddard v. Seymour, 30 Conn. 394; Hamersley v. Franey, 39 Conn. 179; Adams v. Litchfield, 10 Conn. 127; Peck v. Wallace, 10 Conn. 131. 5. Marsh v. Clark County, 42 Wis. 502; People v. Lee, 112 Ill. 113; San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, 87 Cal. 499; Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Min. Co., 66 Cal. 17; Moss v. Shear, 25 Cal. 38; 85 Am. Dec. 94; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146; Clove Spring Iron Works v. Cone, 56 Vt. 603; Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 175; Lyon v. Alley, 130 U. S. 177; Davis v. Farnes, 26 Tex. 296; Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Chemung Canal Nat. Bank v. Elmira, 53 N. Y. 604. And see Kitchen v. Smith, 101 Pa. St. 452; State v. Sloss, 87 Ala. 119; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Koontz, 77 Va. 698. A radical defect in the assessment is such a nullity that it cannot be cured by prescription. Davenport v. Knox, 34 La. Ann. 407; Woolfolk v. Fonbene, 15 La. Ann. 15; Townsend v. Edwards, 25 Fla. 582. And when an assessment is so defective as to be totally void, the legislature cannot cure it by a retrospective enactment. People v. Holladay, 25 Cal. 300; McReynolds v. Longenberger, 57 Pa. St. 13. An assessment which violates a provision of the Federal Constitution is void. San Francisco, etc., R. Co. v. Dinwiddie, 8 Sawyer (U. S.) 312; 13 Fed. Rep. 789. In New Jersey, an assessment blend Where the legislature has failed to prescribe the details of the method of assessment, the reasonable discretion of the assessors may be exercised.1 An assessor cannot assess property situated beyond the limits of his district.2 Property not subject to taxation is, of course, not assessable.3 b. LISTING. In some of the states the taxpayer is required to make and furnish to the assessor a list of his taxable property;4 and corporations may be required to furnish a list of their stockholders or of their capital stock; or to furnish a report of the ing together the state, county and township taxes, is illegal. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Hillegas, 18 N. J. L. 11. See also State v. Falkenburge, 15 N..J. L. 320. 1. See People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; Insurance Co. v. Yard, 17 Pa. St. 331; Laird v. Hiester, 24 Pa. St. 452; Wilson County v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 76 N. Car. 123. 2. People v. Placerville, etc., R. Co., 34 Cal. 656; Bailey v. Fisher, 38 Iowa 229; Barber v. Farr, 54 Iowa 57; Winslow v. Morrill, 47 Me. 411; Brown v. Veazie, 25 Me. 359; Dorn v. Backer, 61 N. Y. 261; Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264. And see Green v. Allen, i Busb. (N. Car.) 228; Hoffman v. Woods, 40 Kan. 382; Chisholm v. Adams, 71 Tex. 678; Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 490; Wadleigh v. Marathon Co. Bank, 58 Wis. 546. Such an assessment has no validity and is of no effect for any purpose. Toby v. Haggarty, 23 Ark. 370; Camden v. Mulford, 26 N. J. L. 49; Martin v. Carron, 26 Ñ. J. L. 228. That the assessment was made in good faith and in ignorance of the fact, is immaterial. Taylor v. Youngs, 48 Mich. 268. 3. See Berry v. Missoula County, 6 Mont. 121; National Bank v. Elmers, 53 N. Y. 53. 4. See St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Surrell, 88 Ill. 535; Felsenthal v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 21; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 625; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. State, 25 Ind. 177; Dubuque v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 47 Iowa 196; Porter v. Norfolk Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) 365; Lanesborough v. Berkshire County, 131 Mass. 424; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 143; Montgomery County v. Mont gomery Gas Light Co., 64 Ala. 269; State v. Apgar, 31 N. J. L. 358; Green v. Allen, 1 Busb. (N. Car.) 228; Ludlow v. Willich, 1 Cin. Sup. Ct. (Ohio) 315; Delaware, etc., Canal Co. v. Com., 43 Pa. St. 227; Harper v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 204; Bartlett v. Wilson, 60 Vt. 644; Weatherhead v. Guilford, 62 Vt. 327. Where one owns property in several districts, he must make return of the property to the assessors of each respectively. Price v. Cramer, 4 Colo. 546. Mailing to the taxpayers, as far as they are known to the assessor, blank statements with a notice that they must comply therewith and must appear before him for that purpose, is a sufficient compliance with a statute directing the assessor to require every person to make a true written statement under oath of all his taxable property. Turner v. Dickerman, 95 Mich. 1. 5. Donovan v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 30 Md. 155. And see State v. Home Ins. Co., 91 Tenn. 558. The officers of a corporation should make the proper returns to the assessor, whether solicited or not. Pacific Hotel Co. v. Lieb, 83 Ill. 602. Although the corporation may keep a list of its stockholders, from which the listers of the town might, on application, transcribe the stock taxable in their town, this will not absolve the cashier from returning a list of the stockholders. Newman v. Wait, 46 Vt. 689. 6. People v. Ward, 105 Ill. 620. And see State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 143; Williamson v. New Jersey, etc., R. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 277: Bank of Bramwell v. Mercer County Ct., 36 W. Va. 341. It has been held under the California statute, that the superintendent of a mining company should furnish the list as managing agent. Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Min. Co., 68 Cal. 14. In Nevada, it was held that the list must show that the person making it is one of those required by statute, and it must be subscribed by him. State v. Washoe County, 5 Nev. 317. amount of their business or their indebtedness.2 Statutes imposing various penalties for a failure or refusal to make a return of the list are frequently found, and have been upheld as constitutional.3 1. See First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 353; Montgomery County v. Montgomery Gas Light Co., 64 Ala..269; State v. Louisiana Mut. Ins. Co., 19 La. Ann. 474; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 17 Nev. 259; State v. McFetridge, 64 Wis. 130; People v. Tax Com'rs, 99 N. Y. 254; State v. Harshaw, 76 Wis. 230. A like return is required of private bankers, under the Pennsylvania statute. Com. v. Cooke, 50 Pa. St. 201. 2. See Com. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 429; Com. v. North Pennsylvania R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 460. 3. Taking Away Right of Appeal or Review. Thus, statutes taking away the right of appeal or review. See State v. Comptroller, 54 N. J. L. 135; Johnson v. Roberts, 102 Ill. 655; State 7. Central Pac. R. Co., 17 Nev. 259; State v. Washoe County, 7 Nev. 83; State v. Washoe County, 5 Nev. 317; Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113; Porter v. Norfolk County, 5 Gray (Mass.) 365; Otis County v. Ware, S Gray (Mass.) 509; National Bank of Commerce v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 313; Vaughan v. Street Com'rs, 154 Mass. 143: Hartford . Champion, 58 Conn. 268; McNulty v. Wilson, 4 Strobh. (S. Car.) 231; Weatherhead v. Guilford, 62 Vt. 327; State v. Apgar, 31 N. J. L. 358; People v. Tax Com'rs, 99 N. Y. 254. It was held in Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 40 La. Ann. 372, that the Louisiana statute was not mandatory, and that a failure to comply with it was not a bar to a review of the assessment made by the assessors. Statutes Multiplying or Adding to the Tax.-See Butler v. Bailey, 2 Bay (S. Car.) 244; Ex p. Lynch, 16 S. Car. 32; State v. Allen, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 55; Biddle v. Oaks, 59 Cal. 94; Harper v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 204; Boyer 7. Jones, 14 Ind. 354: McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn. 252; Fox's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 337; Perry's Petition, 16 N. H. 44; Perley v. Parker, 20 N. H. 263; Bartlett v. Wilson, 59 Vt. 23; Howes v. Bassett, 56 Vt. 141; Bartlett v. Wilson, 60 Vt. 644; Rowell v. Horton, 58 Vt. 1; Weatherhead Guilford, 62 Vt. 327; Meserve v. Folsom, 62 Vt. 504. v. alty, may take the appraisal of the preceding year and double that. Bartlett v. Wilson, 60 Vt. 644. Where the assessors double the tax because the taxpayer has not given in property which he does not really own, the double tax is illegal. White v. State, 51 Ga. 252. A repeal of the statute authorizing the penalty, will not affect additional taxes assessed for refusal to list before the repeal. Hartford v. Champion, 58 Conn. 268. Statutes Imposing Definite Penalties for Refusal or Failure.-See Hartford v. Champion, 58 Conn. 268; Com. v. Cooke, 50 Pa. St. 201; Spalding v. Com., SS Ky. 135; Biddle v. Oaks, 59 Cal. 94; Durham v. State, 117 Ind. 477; State v. Washoe County, 5 Nev. 317; Washington v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 258; Powder River Cattle Co. v. Custer County, 45 Fed. Rep. 323. Where it is required by statute that the taxpayer shall make oath to his inventory, he does not incur the penalty prescribed by refusing to subscribe printed affidavits, unless there is an offer to administer the statutory oath. Marion County v. Kruidenier, 72 Iowa 92. Penalty Assessed for Each OffenseDouble Penalty.-In Com. v. Cooke, 50 Pa. St. 201, it was held that the taxpayer is liable for each neglect to make a proper return, and not for a single penalty as for one offense. But in Roseberry v. Hough, 27 Ind. 12, it was held that the penalty is not to be added for each year that the tax of a particular year remains unpaid. Where one penalty is prescribed for giving a false return, and another for a failure to give a true list or refusal to take the oath prescribed by law, both penalties may be imposed without a violation of the constitutional provision against putting a person twice in jeopardy, the offenses being different. Durham v. State, 117 Ind. 477; Burgh v. State, 108 Ind. 135. Statutes Authorizing the Issue of Execution Against a Party.-See State v. Allen, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 55. Statutes Making a Default an Indictable Offense.-See Berry v. State, Listers, in assessing the double pen- 10 Tex. App. 315; Caldwell v. State, 14 |