sufficiently full and complete to enable the assessors to make the assessment from it.

Oath to List. In some states the list has been required to be given in under oath; and where this is the statute the tax payer will take no benefit from the list unless it is sworn to.1

2

Conclusiveness of List. The statute commonly determines what conclusiveness shall be allowed to the list; but in general it may be said it is not conclusive on the assessors, though if in due form it is taken as prima facie correct, and the assessors add to it in making up their assessment only as the statute allows.

Penalties for Not Giving. The failure to hand in the list, or the refusal to verify it, is made by the statute to subject the

means.

1Lee v. Commonwealth, 6 Dana, 311. As to what is sufficient verification, see Lanesborough v. County Com'rs, 131 Mass., 424; Arnold v. Middletown, 41 Conn., 206. In Wisconsin, if the tax payer does not make oath to his list, the assessor is not bound by it, and may arrive at his property by other If the tax payer claims the assessment to be excessive, his remedy is to appeal. Lawrence v. Janesville, 46 Wis., 364. In Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis County, 19 Kan., 584, it appeared that the tax payer returned a sworn statement of its property as required by law. After notice given, the county commissioners, upon their personal knowledge and previous returns made by the tax payer, but without evidence introduced on the hearing, save in corroboration of the correctness of the statement, raised the valuation. Held valid. The court say the proceeding is only quasi judicial, and while evidence may be taken, it is not indispensable.

2 Felsenthal v. Johnson, 104 Ill., 21.

The list is to be taken as presumptively including all the tax payer's property, although it does not in terms say so. Lanesborough v. County Com'rs, 131 Mass., 124.

A statute of Massachusetts provided that the tax payer's return should be taken as true by the assessors, unless the tax payer refused when required "to answer on oath all necessary inquiries as to the nature and amount of his property." A severe penalty was laid upon any false return. Held, that while the assessors might abate the tax upon an item improperly included in the list (Charlestown v. County Com'rs, 109 Mass., 270), they cannot add anything to the list upon any information, however satisfactory, which is not communicated to the tax payer. He has a right to be heard upon the proposed addition. Moors v. Street Com'rs of Boston, 131 Mass., 431. In Ohio a chose in action omitted from the list may be put in by the auditor. Cameron v. Cappeller, 41 Ohio St., 533.

If a tax payer, by mistake of law, makes his return to the wrong town, and so is twice taxed, he is held to be without remedy. People v. Atkinson, 103 Ill., 45.

tax payer to some specified liability. Sometimes to the doubling for taxation such estimate as the assessor shall make of his property; sometimes to a definite penalty; sometimes to deprivation of any right to appeal against what he may regard as an unjust assessment. The right to discriminate in some manner against those who fail to hand in lists has often been judicially recognized. When the discrimination consists merely in submitting the party to the "doom" of the assessor, and depriving him of any appeal, it would seem that there could be no valid objection to it. The assessor will be likely, under such circumstances, to make liberal estimates of property, so that the state, it may be presumed, will not be the loser, and the tax payer, if he is over assessed, suffers a misfortune for which no one, unless it be himself, is blamable. But when a statute goes further, and subjects the party to penalties of any kind, to be inflicted by a ministerial officer without a hearing, for a neglect that may have been unintentional and perhaps entirely excusable, it is not so clear that it is consistent with the genius of the common law or with general principles of American jurisprudence. But the authorities sustain such statutes, as is said in one case, "on the ground of state necessity and immemorial usage."

1 Butler v. Bailey, 2 Bay, 244.

2 See State v. Bell, 1 Phil. (N. C.), 76; Winnimisset Co. v. Chelsea, 6 Cush., 477; Donovan v. Insurance Co., 30 Md., 155; State v. Welch, 28 Mo., 600; State v. Leavell, 3 Blackf., 117; State v. Hamilton, 5 Ind., 310; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. State, 25 Ind., 177. In Texas the tax payer who neglects or refuses to render a list of taxable property is subject to indictment. Caldwell v. State, 14 Tex. Ap., 171.

3 See Porter v. County Commissioners, 5 Gray, 365; Otis Company v. Ware, 8 Gray, 509; State v. Apgar, 31 N. J., 358; State v. Board of Equalization, 7 Nev., 83.

4 Ex parte Lynch, 16 S. C., 32. In this case the statute required an addition to the assessment of fifty per cent. as a penalty for default in making return of the property for taxation.

In Minnesota it has been decided that where the constitution requires all taxation to be by value, it is incompetent to provide by law for increasing the assessed valuation by a sum to be added as a penalty for not handing in a list. McCormick v. Fitch, 14 Minn., 252. And see State v. Allen, 2 McCord, 55. A contrary ruling in Indiana was made in the case of Boyer v. Jones, 14 Ind., 354, where a party had refused to list property which he claimed was not taxable, and was subjected to a penalty of fifty per cent. on the valuation, for the refusal. In Vermont, where on a similar refusal the assess

It has been decided in Kentucky that penal provisions of this character must be strictly construed; a decision quite in harmony with the general rules of construction. But when the construction is clear, they are generally enforced. The Massachusetts statute (1835) took away all right to abatement of an excessive assessment on appeal to the county commissioners, when the appellant had failed to bring in a list of his estate to the assessors, unless he could show good cause for the failure; and also when he had failed to make oath to the truth of the list if required by the assessors to do so. Under this statute it was held that the assessors could not waive the bringing in of the list; that corporations as well as natural persons must comply with it; that an exhibition to the assessors of a plan of the tax payer's real estate, or referring them to the list of a preceding year, would not be a compliance with the statute; 2 that the list must be handed in before the tax is actually assessed,3

ors were to proceed to make their appraisal and then double it, it was held that they could not do this on a mere rumor of what the man was worth, and then deny him a hearing. Howes v. Barrett, 56 Vt., 141. See Brush v. Baker, 56 Vt., 143.

Some statutes make provision for enforcing by suit the penalties for neglect to hand in lists. See Drexel v. Commonwealth, 46 Pa. St., 31.

1 Alexander v. Commonwealth, 1 Bibb, 515; McCall v. The Justices, 1 Bibb, 516; Olds v. Commonwealth, 3 A. K. Marsh., 465; Chiles v. Commonwealth, 4 J. J. Marsh., 577. The point was made in Drexel v. Commonwealth, 46 Pa. St., 31, but not decided. In Connecticut it is held that a list sufficient as to the personal estate cannot be rejected as to that because not sufficient as to the realty. New Canaan v. Hoyt, 23 Conn., 148. In Alabama a statute requiring every person in the state "who is liable to pay taxes" to render "a list of his taxable property" to the assessors, and providing that if he does not, they may call at his residence for a list of his taxables or for the amount of taxes due from him, held applicable to one liable only to a poll tax. Carter v. Mercer, 9 Ala., 556. As to what is a sufficient listing in Ver. mont, see Blodgett v. Holbrook, 39 Vt., 336.

Winnimisset Co. v. Chelsea, 6 Cush., 477. And see Otis Co. v. Ware, 8 Gray, 509. The statute required the assessors to notify the inhabitants, at the town meeting or otherwise, to bring in lists. It was held in the first of these cases that if a failure to give notice was relied upon, it devolved on the tax payer to show it. Corporations may be required to furnish for taxation lists of their stockholders to all the local authorities where they severally reside. Donovan v. Insurance Co., 30 Md., 155.

3 Porter v. County Commissioners, 5 Gray, 365; Otis Co. v. Ware, 8 Gray, 509. The omission to require an oath to it is not fatal. Lynam v. Anderson, 9 Neb., 367.

and that if not handed in, the tax payer submits himself to the "doom" of the assessors.'

It has also been held, on a construction of the statute, that no abatement would be made before a list was brought in, though a sufficient excuse for not bringing it in at the proper time was shown.2 Handing in a list which, by mistake of the lister's rights, is made to embrace property not liable to taxation, will not estop him from claiming an abatement as to such exempt property; there being no reason of justice or public policy why it should. But while this is true, it is also true that the tax payer cannot complain of any mere irregularity in the action of the assessors into which they have been led by an error or imperfection in his own list not affecting

Lincoln v. Worcester, 8 Cush., 55, 63. But where a list was not brought in until after the time limited for it had expired, but the delay was chargeable to the assessors themselves, who expressly told the party's agent nothing should be lost by the delay, it was held that the right to apply for an abatement was not lost. Lowell v. County Commissioners, 3 Allen, 546.

2 Charlestown v. County Commissioners, 101 Mass., 87. In abating a tax which has been paid, the county commissioners have no right to allow interest; the statute not providing for it. Lowell v. County Commissioners, 3 Allen, 550. Nor costs, for the same reason. Same v. Same, 3 Allen, 556. Successors of assessors who have levied a tax may abate it if application therefor is made within the statutory time. Hibbard v. Garfield, 102 Mass., 72; Carleton v. Ashburnham, 102 Mass., 348. One who has handed in no list and is over-taxed, cannot pay his tax, and then recover back on showing a mistake in the assessors; a mistake not rendering the tax illegal. Lott v. Hubbard, 44 Ala., 593.

3 Charlestown v. County Commissioners, 109 Mass., 270, citing Dunnell Manuf. Co. v. Pawtucket, 7 Gray, 277, where the point was substantially the same. In Illinois it has been decided that if one voluntarily lists for taxation corporate stocks which are not taxable, and they are taxed accordingly, he cannot complain, as it is his own fault. Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Pollak, 75 Ill., 292. See People v. Railroad Co., 49 Cal., 414. When the list of a corporation contains erroneous items, the corporation cannot, in a suit in which it relies upon the list, disprove its correctness. People v. Railroad Co., 49 Cal., 414. An erroneous overvaluation by the officer of the corporation will not entitle the corporation to recover back any portion of the taxes paid. Cerbat Mining Co. v. State, 29 Hun, 81.

A tax payer taxable on receipts of business gave in his list, but protested that the tax was not lawful. He afterwards contended that, as to a part, he was not taxable, because it had been paid to others as their share of the business. Held, as to this, he was estopped by his list. v. St. Joseph, 66 Mo., 675.

Am. U. Exp. Co.

his substantial rights. These references will perhaps sufficiently indicate the views which have been taken by the courts of statutes of this nature.

Right to a hearing. The summary nature of tax proceedings has been remarked upon already. They are made summary of necessity. The assessment, if made in compliance with the law, will establish conclusively the basis of periodical taxation. Every inhabitant of the state is liable, by means thereof, to have a demand established against him on the judg ment of others regarding the sum which he should justly and equitably contribute to the public revenues. Every owner of property in the state, whether he be an inhabitant or not, is

1 As where, the party's agent being called upon for a list, he furnished it, but omitted one parcel of land, which was taxed as non-resident in consequence. Kinsworthy v. Mitchell, 21 Ark., 145. To the same effect is Nelson v. Pierce, 6 N. H., 194. The tax payer giving an erroneous description of his lands to the assessor is estopped from complaining of it. Hubbard v. Windsor, 15 Mich., 146.

2 The person from whom a list is required under a penalty cannot excuse himself by showing as to an article he should have listed (a billiard table) that another person had listed it. Olds v. Commonwealth, 3 A. K. Marsh., 465. Where one excused himself from making a list, saying it was unnecessary, held to be a refusal. State v. Parker, 33 N. J., 192. See State v. Bishop, 34 N. J., 45; State v. Parker, 34 N. J., 49; State v. McChesney, 34 N. J., 63. The list is not conclusive on the assessors. Thompson v. Tinkcom, 15 Minn., 295. But it has been said they ought to adopt the valuation of the lister in the absence of any evidence of its incorrectness (People v. Reddy, 43 Barb., 539; People v. Assessors of Albany, 40 N. Y., 154); though they are not liable for any bona fide exercise of their power in this regard. Vose v. Willard, 47 Barb., 320; Bell v. Pierce, 48 Barb., 51; Stearns v. Miller, 25 Vt., 20; Wilson v. Marsh, 34 Vt., 352. But for a failure to perform ministerial duties to the lister's prejudice the officers may be liable. Kellogg v. Higgins, 11 Vt., 240; Fairbanks v. Kittredge, 24 Vt., 9.

In Nevada a tax payer who fails to hand in his list is allowed no standing before the board of equalization. State v. Board of Equalization, 7 Nev., 83. In New Jersey he loses his right to appeal. State v. Apgar, 31 N. J., 358. An early statute in South Carolina provided that a "tax of $10,000” should be imposed upon every person keeping open an office for the sale of lottery tickets, and that "it shall be the duty of the tax collector in the district where such lottery offices are opened, in default of the person or persons keeping such offices to return the same and pay the tax imposed by this law, to issue his execution as in other cases of defaulters." The court held this, though called a tax, to be really a penalty, which it was not competent to authorize the collector to impose. State v. Allen, 2 McCord, 55.