tions are assessed like other personal property, at their market value, not at their par value, unless the statute so directs. And where the tax on the franchise of a corporation was measured by the value of the shares, and the corporation had declared a dividend of twenty per cent. payable in future carrying interest, and afterward issued new shares not participating in the dividend, so that the old and new shares were of different market values, the commissioners added the market value of the old shares to those of the new without deducting the dividend, and the assessment was sustained.?

3

In the column of valuation it sometimes happens that there is no prefix of the $ mark to the numerals, and it is a mooted question how far it affects the validity of the roll. In California, such a defect is fatal in an action for taxes. In that State the assessors return the roll to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The board equalize the valuations, and the clerk enters the changes and corrections made by the board. The clerk then delivers the roll to the county auditor, who adds up the columns of valuation, enters totals in the roll, and delivers it to the collector. This roll is called the duplicate. The valuation is essential, and must be made by the assessors. The roll as made by them is the basis of all future proceedings. If no dollar mark be in the roll as made by the assessors, the auditor cannot add it. The court liken the case to that of a suit brought on a note which is blank as to time when it is to be paid, and as to the number of dollars to be paid, and very pertinently asks, could they be filled up by the court, and judgment given for the amount thus inserted? Where the dollar mark is prefixed to the aggregate of items in a column headed value of improvements, although the items in a subcolumn have no dollar mark prefixed to the numerals, it is good. If the aggregate represents dollars, the sums of which it is composed must be dollars. A similar principle is announced in Illinois, in sales of land for delinquent taxes. The statute requires the judgment of a court for the amount of the taxes against the land, and a judgment which contains numerals only without any dollar mark is void. But in the same State, the courts hold that the doctrine does not apply to proceedings prior to judgment for the tax, and that the mere failure

1 Williams v. Albany, 5 N. Y. Supreme Ct. (N. S.) 155; People v. Assessors, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 155.

2 Boston & Lowell R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 100 Mass. 399.

'People v. San Francisco Savings Bank, 31 Cal. 132; Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610; People v. Hastings, 34 Cal. 571.

31 Cal. 132.

5 People v. Empire G. & S. Mining Co. 33 Cal. 171. Lawrence v. Fast, 20 III. 340; Lane v. Bommelman, 21 Ill. 147; Woods v. Freeman,

1 Wall, 398.

to use the dollar mark does not render the roll as to that tax illegal. And this principle was applied to a case where a defendant in ejectment made defense under a statute protecting a seven years possession and payment of taxes for the successive years, and had failed to pay for one of the years. He claimed that the tax for that year was illegal for want of a dollar mark, but the defense was not sustained.1

In Nevada the doctrine is that numerals alone are sufficient, and the absence of the dollar mark does not make the tax illegal if the intention can be gathered from the whole roll and the nature of the subject, and it is sufficiently certain. We conclude that a roll which has the dollar mark in any part, and where the numerals have the decimal mark, indicating dollars and cents, the valuation is sufficiently certain. But where a suit is brought for taxes, or a judgment is given, and the question arises directly and not collaterally, such a valuation, consisting of numerals alone, is not sufficient.

The valuation must be placed in the proper column. In an ac-tion for taxes, in California, where there is a column for "description of property," and one for "value of land," a person owned several tracts, and the value was placed opposite each tract in the first column, and only the total of the several tracts under the column of value, and the assessment was held not valid. The value of each parcel should have been extended under the column "value of land." So a gross valuation of seven distinct parcels is invalid in Wisconsin, and under their statute such a description will be expunged from the rolls.

§ 100. Completion, Authentication, and Delivery of Roll.After the property is valued, there is a column for the rate of tax, which is determined usually by the legislature in the tax law. In States which adopt the system of New York, the rate is fixed by the supervisors. Where the legislature fixes the rate the assessors calculate the amount of tax of each person on each species of property charged in the roll, and extend it in the column "amount of tax." This is essential to the validity of the tax. Under the New York system the board of supervisors correct the roll, determine the amount of State and county tax to be raised, and to this they add the amount to be raised by the town. From these data they fix the rate of tax, and as

1 Chickering v. Failles, 38 Ill. 342; Elston v. Kennicott, 46 Ill. 202, reviewing all former cases in that State.

2 State v. Eureka Consolidated Mining Co. 8 Nev. 15.

3 People v. Hollister, 47 Cal. 408; People v. Sierra Buttes Mining Co. 29 Cal. 511. State v. Supervisors of La Fayette Co. 3 Wis. 712,

5 State v. Perkins, 4 Zabr. 409.

certain the amount of each person's tax, which is placed in the column 66 amount of tax." 1

When the roll is completed by the assessors, it must be authenticated by them in the mode pointed out by the statute. Signing in their official character is one of the essentials, and while the signing is not required to be in any particular part of the list, it must appear to have been intended to give their official sanction to the roll.2 Where a roll consisted of a list first of non-resident lands, and then of resident lands, running through a number of pages, the signing was at the beginning of the roll, and the certificate referred alone to nonresident lands, this was not deemed a good signing as to the resident lands.3

Where the statute requires the assessors to make oath to the certificate attached to the roll, that is essential to the validity of the roll; but if the certificate is signed by the assessors, stating that they have made oath, and they have failed to attach the jurats of the officer before whom the oath was taken, the roll is good if they were actually sworn, and it may be shown by parol.

When the roll is properly authenticated, it is then required to be delivered to some public officer, where it is open to inspection and correction. In Massachusetts it is delivered to the town clerk. This filing in some public office is essential to the validity of the roll. In New York it is delivered to the supervisors of the county. After the assessors deliver the roll to the proper authorities, they have no further control over it. The case last cited was an attempt to make a person a legal voter by placing his name on the roll, and assessing him with a poll-tax, after the roll went into the hands of the collector.

In New York the assessors have the months of May and June to make the necessary inquiries, and to assess property and persons as of the first of July. The roll must be completed and deposited with one of the assessors for examination on the first day of August, and they

1 Bellinger v. Gray, 51 N. Y. 612.

2 Foxcroft v. Nevins, 4 Greenleaf, 72; Kellar v. Savage, 20 Maine, 199; Johnson v. Elwood, 53 N. Y. 435; Sibley v. Smith, 2 Gibbs (Mich.) 498. In Michigan the act of 1842 did not require the roll to be signed. Lacey v. Davis, 4 Mich. 141. The seal to the warrant is not necessary, unless made so by statute. Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. 496. 3 Johnson v. Goodridge, 15 Maine, 29.

4 Blodgett v. Holbrook, 39 Vt. 386; and see People v. Fowler et al. 55 N. Y. 253, and Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 401, as to the necessity of the oath.

Blossom v. Cannon, 14 Mass. 177; Thayer v. Stearns, 1 Pick. 482; Thurston v. Little, 3 Mass. 432.

Van Rensselaer v. Whitbeck, 7 N. Y. 517; Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 406. So in California and other States. People v. San Francisco Savings Bank, 31 Cal. 132.

People v. Marsh, 49 N. Y. 655; Opinions of the Judges, 18 Pick. 575.

have the power to review and correct their assessments up to the third Tuesday in August. The roll is then authenticated by the signature and affidavits of the assessors, and delivered to the supervisor of the town on or before the first of September, and by him delivered to the board of supervisors of the county. The roll must be certified substantially in the form prescribed by the statute. The New York certificate is: "We have estimated the value of real estate, at the sums which the majority of the assessors have decided to be the true value thereof, and at which they would appraise the same in the payment of a just debt from a solvent debtor;" and as to personal property: "We have estimated the same according to our best information and belief." A certificate in which the assessors say, (6 we have estimated the value of real estate at the sums which a majority of the assessors have decided to be proper; and as to personalty, according to the usual way of assessing," does not comply with the statute, and the roll is illegal. Where the assessors made their certificate in the usual form, leaving out the words, " at which they would appraise the same in the payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor," a mandamus was issued to compel them to make the certificate and oath in the form prescribed by the statute. Upon the return it appeared that the custom was to value real estate in the town of Rye at from one-third to one-fourth the full and true value, and that this was necessary, and that in view of the practice of assessors in other towns of Westchester county, no other basis could be adopted in justice and fairness to the town of Rye. Although this answer showed that the assessors had violated the statute and their official oath, to obtain what they considered the rights of their town, it was decided that they could not be compelled to make oath to a statement to which they could not truthfully swear. Courts do not sit to compel men to take false oaths, and whatever duty the assessors may have omitted, they owe no duty to the public to commit crime, and no public exigency can require it of them.3

The time within which the return of the roll is to be made is often material, especially where a certain period is allowed for the correction of errors and appeals from the decisions of the assessors. In Connecticut, the list was required to be returned to the town clerk on or before the first day of December. After the return the board of appeals was to meet upon a notice of ten days to hear appeals, the

1 Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; Westfall v. Preston, Id. 345, 354.

? Van Rensselaer v. Whitbeck, 7 N. Y. 517, affi'd Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y. 406. People v. Fowler, 55 N. Y. 252; Howland v. Eldridge, 43 N. Y. 457.

meeting to be on or before the first Monday in January following. The list was not returned until the 20th of December. Parties appeared at the office of the town clerk, repeatedly before the 20th of December to examine the list. The plaintiff appeared among others, but he did not appear before the board of appeals, which met on the last Monday in December, after the ten days' notice. The provision of the statute was regarded as imperative. The legislature had fixed upon the first day of December as the day for the return. The reason for it was obviously to give all persons interested an opportunity to examine the list, and if they see proper, to appeal to the board of appeals to correct any error that may appear in the roll. And so in Illinois, where the roll was to be returned on or before the first day of May to the clerk of the county commissioners court, and applications were to be made at the ensuing June term for the correction of assessments. When the list was not returned until the third day of June, it was declared void, the provision as to time being regarded as imperative. In New York the assessors are required to give notice of the completion of the rolls, and to specify a day when they will meet to review their assessment; and school trustees, when property not upon the last roll is assessed by them for a school tax, are required to give a like notice. Such a requirement is mandatory and necessary to the validity of the roll.

8

'Thames Manuf. Co. v. Lathrop, 7 Conn. 530.

2 Marsh

30 Ill. 119.

Chestnut, 14 Ill. 223; s. P. Billings v. Detten, 15 Ill. 218; Brown v. Hogle,

3 Jewell v. Van Steenburgh et al. 58 N. Y. 85, 89.