edge and belief of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding, and that he had subscribed his name as a witness of the testator, in his presence and in the presence of the other witnesses. Both witnesses also swore that Engle had subscribed his name as a witness to the will by making his mark to his name which had been written for him by Harner. The orphans' court then passed the order appealed from refusing to admit the will to probate because it was "not executed according to the act of assembly in such case made and provided." The orphans' court were clearly in error in refusing probate of this will. The provision of the statute of this state that a will must be attested and subscribed by the witnesses in the presence of the testator had its origin in the statute of frauds and is substantially the same as that in force in most of the other states and in England. The text-books and the decisions of the English and American courts agree that when another person writes the name of a witness to a will for him and the latter puts his mark to the name which has thus been written it operates as his signature as fully as if he had subscribed his name: Jarman on Wills, *85; Beach on Wills, sec. 41; Schouler on Wills, sec. 331; 1 Redfield on Wills, 229; Harrison v. Harrison, 8 Ves. Jr. 185; Addy v. Grix, 8 Ves. Jr. 503; Compton v. Mitton, 12 N. J. L. 70; Ford v. Ford, 7 Humph. 96; Davis v. Semmes, 51 Ark. 48, 9 S. W. 434; In re Will of B. Guilfoyle, 96 Cal. 598, 31 Pac. 553, 22 L. R. A. 372, where a collection of the cases on the subject will be found under the rote on attestation. No Maryland decision directly to the point now in issue has been called to our attention, but in Collins v. Nicols, 1 Har. & J. 402, it was held that to establish a will so as to pass title to land "there must be proof of the handwriting of the testator and of all the witnesses before the will can be given in evidence (in an ejectment) and where the witnesses have put their marks there must be proof that such marks are the marks of the witnesses," thus recognizing the mark made by 737 the witness as a sufficient attestation by him of the will. The doctrine thus announced in Collins v. Nicols, 1 Har. & J. 402, was cited with approval and relied on by this court in Hoppe v. Byers, 60 Md. 388, showing it to be in accord with the current of authorities upon the sufficiency of the mark made by the attesting witness. The order appealed from will be reversed and the case remanded to the end that the will may be admitted to probate, Order reversed with costs to be paid out of the estate and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. ▲ Subscribing Witness may attest a will by making his mark, his name being written by another: Jesse v. Parker, 6 Gratt. 57, 52 Am. Dec. 102; Montgomery v. Perkins, 2 Met. (Ky.) 448, 74 Am. Dec. 419; Simmons v. Leonard, 91 Tenn. 183, 30 Am. St. Rep. 875, 18 S. W. 280; Garrett v. Heflin, 98 Ala. 615, 39 Am. St. Rep. 89, 11 South. 746. CASES IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. HARRINGTON ▾. GLIDDEN. TAXATION-Assessments for, When Conclusive.-If a statute provides that a person aggrieved by an assessment may apply for an abatement to the assessors, or by appeal to the county commissioners or superior court, and, on grounds of law, may reach the supreme court, but that no person shall have an abatement unless he files a list of his property, the remedy is exclusive, and the assessment is not subject to collateral attack. (pp. 615, 617.) TAXATION.-When the Assessors Act Without Their Jurisdiction, their acts are absolutely void. (pp. 615. 616.) TAXATION.-An Assessment Against a Nonresident for Personal Property When He has None Within the Town, though he has real property there subject to taxation, is wholly void. (p. 616.) TAXATION-Assessment Description, When Sufficient.—A description in an assessment of personal property as "money, income, stocks, bonds, and all other taxable securities taxable under the laws of this commonwealth," is sufficient. (p. 618.) TAXATION.-The Statute of Limitations Against an Action to Collect Taxes does not commence to run until three years after they have been committed to the collector. (p. 619.) TAXATION-Constitutional Law.-A statute giving a person aggrieved by an assessment the right to apply to the assessors for abatement, and to appeal from their decision to the county commissioners or superior court, and, on questions of law, to the supreme court, and declaring that no person shall have an abatement unless he files a list of his property with the assessor, is constitutional. (p. 619.) Action by the tax collector of Lowell to collect two thousand five hundred and seventy-six dollars, with interest, for taxes assessed in the year 1889 against the defendant as trustee, he being a resident and inhabitant of that city. The writ was dated July 6, 1895. The evidence showed that the defendant was a director of the Erie Telegraph and Telephone Company, that it had an office and place of business in Lowell, that the assessors gave notice to the inhabitants of that city, by posting, of their intention to assess taxes and requiring the inhabitants to bring to the assessors, on or before June 15th, true lists of all their personal estates not exempt from taxation. The defendant did not bring in any list of his property as trustee until February 24, 1890, at which time he filed a petition for abatement, and admitted that there stood in his name as trustee for the Erie Telegraph and Telephone Company two thousand shares of the stock of the Southwestern Telegraph and Telephone Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New York for doing business in Arkansas and Texas, one hundred and forty-nine shares of the capital stock of the Cleveland Telephone Company, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of Ohio, and thirteen hundred shares of the capital stock of the Northwestern Telephone Exchange Company, a corporation organized in Minnesota and doing business under its laws; but the defendant claimed that he had never had in his possession, control, or management a certificate of any of such stock, nor had he ever had any income, profits, or proceeds arising therefrom. The assessment against the defendant and other directors of the Erie Telegraph and Telephone Company was made on April 11, 1889. The description of the property, which was valued at one hundred and sixty thousand dollars, was as follows: "Money, income, stocks, bonds, and all other taxable securities taxable under the laws of this commonwealth." The defendant asked the trial court to rule that the action could not be maintained, that it was barred by the statute of limitations, and for many other rulings, which were denied, and the defendants excepted. The jury, under the rulings and instructions of the court, found for the plaintiff. H. N. Shepard and J. C. Burke, for the defendant. G. F. Richardson and F. W. Qua, for the plaintiff. 490 HAMMOND, J. In this action the plaintiff, as collector, seeks to recover a tax assessed upon the defendant, as trustee. It is contended by the defendant that, even if he was a trustee, such was the nature and location of the property, and his relation to it, that he was not taxable as such. The first question is whether this ground of the defense is open to the defendant in this action. The assessment and collection of 491 taxes is regulated by statute. The assessors are public officers, and, while their duties are of a quasi judicial nature, their jurisdiction is limited, based sometimes upon the residence of the person assessed, or of some other person interested in the property, and sometimes upon the situation of the property. Without reciting in detail the statutes, it is sufficient to say that they provide that each person may bring in a sworn list of the personal property for which he in any capacity should be taxed, and this list is to be received by the assessors as true, except as to valuation, unless he, being required thereto by the assessors, refuses to answer on oath all necessary inquiries as to the nature and amount of his property. In case a person does not bring in a list, the assessors shall ascertain, as nearly as possible, his taxable property, and "make an estimate thereof at its just value, according to their best information and belief," and "such estimate shall be conclusive," except in certain cases not here material: Pub. Stats., c. 11, secs. 38-42. Any person aggrieved by an assessment may apply for an abatement to the assessors, and, by appeal from their decision, to the county commissioners or superior court, and on questions of law may reach this court; but no person shall have an abatement unless he files a list, as above provided: Pub. Stats., secs. 69-72; Stats. 1890, c. 127. This plain, adequate, and complete remedy for the correction of errors, whether of law or fact, is the only one provided by our statutes; and when the assessors are acting within their jurisdiction, it must be regarded as exclusive, in accordance with the well-known rule that "when a new right is created by statute, which at the same time provides a remedy for any infringement of it, that remedy must be pursued": Osborne v. Danvers, 6 Pick. 98. But when the assessors are acting outside their jurisdiction, their acts are absolutely void. Where, for instance, the tax ordered is illegal because for a purpose not authorized by law, the assessment is void. The assessors have no jurisdiction: Bangs v. Snow, 1 Mass. 181; Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272, 7 Am. Dec. 145. So where the assessment is upon a nonresident for personal property, claimed, by reason of its location in the town where the assessment is made, to be taxable there, if it appears that the nonresident had no personal property assessable there, the tax is wholly void, even if he had taxable real estate there. The reason is that, the person assessed not being resident in the town where the assessment is made, and so not within the jurisdiction of the assessors, their right to assess him, so far as respects per |