members of the board to sign it, even though they testify that they would have signed it had they supposed it necessary. People v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, 183-311.

36. A school tax levy certificate made by the secretary of the board of education and signed by the president and secretary of the board, although they are not so designated, may be amended, on application for judgment of sale, by allowing the other members of the board to sign it, where they testified they were present and would have signed it when it was made had they known it to be necessary, and where the record of the meeting shows that the secretary was authorized to make and file the certificate. Illinois Southern Railway Company v. The People, 215-123.

37. A tax stated in the certificate to be for building purposes cannot be sustained where the evidence shows there was no vote authorizing the building of a school house and no intention to build one, the purpose of the tax being for repairs, building of out-houses and laying sewer pipe, and where, also, there is no evidence that if the amount so levied were added to the amount levied for school purposes the limitation on tax for the latter would not be exceeded. Ibid.

38. Equity will not restrain a tax levied by officers, either de jure or de facto, where the power to levy a tax is an incident to their office, and mere irregularities and informalities in its levy or collection will not be inquired into by a court of equity, but the parties supposing themselves to be aggrieved will be left to seek their remedy at law. Merritt v. Farris, 22–303.

39. The cases are rare, even where the tax had been levied by persons having no pretense of legal authority to make such a levy, or in cases where the tax was not authorized by law, or where the warrant for its collection was void, that courts have interposed to stay its collection. Munson v. Minor, 22-594; Metz v. Anderson, 23-463.

40. No rule is more familiar than that courts of equity will not interpose to give relief, in cases where the party has a full and complete remedy at law, unless it be where the jurisdiction is concurrent. If courts of equity were to entertain jurisdiction, and enjoin the collection of taxes, in all cases in which mere informalities and irregularities have occured in their assessment and levy, it would lead to great delay in their collection, and tend seriously to embarass every department of government, and would render the operation of the school system very precarious. Ibid.

41. It may be stated, as a general rule, that courts of equity will not interfere to restrain the collection of taxes imposed by the officers having in charge the execution of the school laws, but parties aggrieved will be remitted to the tribunals of the law authorized to enforce and collect the same, where generally an adequate remedy is to be found. This general rule has admitted exceptions in cases where taxes are sought to be imposed without authority of law. In the absence of fraud on the part of the public authority in assessing the property or levying the tax, there must be a defect, under the law, to levy the particular tax, either because there is no authority for its levy or because the property is exempt; or where there is no power in bodies seeking to impose the tax to levy it; or where there has been a levy in excess of the amount authorized by law; or where the persons or body levying the same had no jurisdiction over the subject matter sought to be taxed. Lawrence v. Traner, 136-474.

42. It is also the well established rule that when taxes levied for school purposes by a body authorized by law to impose them, do not exceed the amount or rate allowed by law, the fact that it may be proposed to divert them to another purpose, even though such purpose be illegal, will not authorize a court of equity to restrain their collection. After the collection of the tax, equity will interpose to prevent its misappropriation. Ibid.

43. A tax levy is not invalid because the certificate of levy is made and signed at a meeting of the board of directors assembled without a formal call, where the three members of the board are present and consent to act. The statute provides that the board of directors shall hold regular meetings at such times as they may designate, and special meetings on the call of the

president or any two members of the board. It further provides that no official business shall be transacted except at a regular or special meeting. The purpose of the provision in respect to calling special meetings was, to give power to some designated person or persons to call the same, and thereby constitute it a legal meeting, at which a quorum might transact the corporate business. It was not intended to be exclusive, or to vest authority in the board it would not have, if otherwise assembled. Ibid.

44. It must be apparent that if the three directors met and determined the amount of school tax required, and made the statutory certificate, and delivered the same to the township treasurer, they were exercising an official function, and their joint concurrence and act was the exercise of their corporate power to levy the tax. And although it is alleged that the levy was made by two of the directors, it will be presumed, if necessary to uphold the action of the board, in the absence of averments to the contrary, that the other member of the board was present and concurring. Ibid.

45. The directors are required to ascertain, as nearly as practicable, annually, how much money must be raised by special tax for school purposes during the ensuing year, which they are required to certify to the township treasurer on or before the first Tuesday in August, annually. It seems clear that when the certificate is signed by the directors and filed with the treasurer, it is made the basis for the extension of the tax, and is in itself, in fact, the levy thereof. When it is transmitted to the clerk, he acts, in the extension of the tax and issuing his warrant for its collection, alone on such certificate. Nothing more is necessary, under the statute, to constitute it, as extended, a valid tax. The making of the certificate, and filing it as required by law by the board of directors, is of itself a determination of the amount necessary to be raised for the purposes therein indicated. Ibid.

46. The determination of the amount to be raised, and the making and the filing of the certificate of levy, are official acts, which alone can be performed by the board of directors acting in their corporate capacity, and the clerk of the board is required to keep a record thereof. Will his failure to do so render the tax void? The officers charged with carrying the levy forward act alone upon the certificate. They do not act upon the record of the board of directors, as made by the district clerk. The machinery of the law, which is to result in realizing the money required to carry on this governmental purpose, is put in motion and vitalized by the certificate thus filed and transmitted to the clerk. Ibid.

47. Ordinarily, quasi municipal corporations speak only by their record; but it is entirely competent for the Legislature to prescribe what is necessary to be done by the municipal officers to consitute valid municipal acts, and what shall be the evidence of the same, and the Legislature having prescribed what shall constitute a valid levy of the tax, and what shall be done to perfect the same and realize the money levied, it must be held that the requirement that the clerk shall keep a record of the official acts of the board of directors in respect of the levy of such tax, is directory, only. The matter of their keeping a record does not go to the question of the power of the board to levy the tax. The validity of the tax not resting upon the record made by the clerk of the board of directors, a failure to make a record thereof will not render the tax levied in accordance with the law invalid. Ibid.

§ 3. It shall be the duty of the township treasurer to return the certificate mentioned in the foregoing section to the county clerk, on or before the second Monday of August, and whenever the boundaries of the districts of the townships shall have been changed, the township treasurer shall return to the county clerk, with the certificates, a map of the township, showing such changes, and certified as required by the provisions of this act.

§ 4. When a district lies partly in two or more counties, the directors thereof shall ascertain as near as practicable the amount to be raised by special tax for school purposes, and shall prepare one

certificate thereof for each county in which such district may lie, and deliver all of the said certificates to the township treasurer, who receives the tax money of such district, who shall return one each of such certificates to the county clerk of such county within which such district shall lie. On the first Monday of October, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, annually, the county clerk of each of such counties shall ascertain the total equalized valuation of all the taxable property in that part of such district as shall lie in his county, and certify the amount thereof to the county clerk of each of the other counties in which such district may lie; and from the aggregate of such equalized valuation and from the certificate of the amount so required to be levied, such clerk shall ascertain the rate per cent required to produce in such district the amount of such levy, and at that rate shall extend the special tax to be levied for school purposes in that part of such district lying in their respective counties. (As amended by an act approved June 17, 1891.)

§ 5. According to the amount certified, as aforesaid, the county clerk, when making out the tax books for the collector, shall compute each taxable person's tax, in said district, upon the total amount of taxable property, as equalized by the State Board of Equalization for that year, lying and being in said district, whether belonging to residents or non-residents, and also each and every tract of land assessed by the assessor, which lies or the largest part of which lies in said district. The said county clerk shall cause each person's tax so computed, to be set upon the tax book to be delivered to the collector for that year, in a separate column, against each taxpayer's name or parcel of taxable property, as it appears in said collectors books, to be collected in the same manner and at the same time and by the same person as State and county taxes are collected.

§ 6. It shall be the duty of assessors, when making assessments of personal property, to designate the number of the school district in which such person so assessed resides; which designation shall be made by writing the number of such district opposite each person's assessment of personal property, in a column provided for that purpose, in the assessment roll returned by the assessor to the county clerk.

1. With certain qualifications, personal property follows the residence of the owner, and is there taxable. This is so where the personal property is not permanently located in another place. If it be, then it may be taxed where it is thus permanently located. Mills v. Thornton, 26-300.

2. A party who complains of a school tax as levied in a certain district, must show that the property was not taxable in such district. Ibid.

3. Personal property usually follows the residence of the owner, and is there taxable. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. It is not strictly true as to personal property owned by incorporated companies and mercantile firms by a common title, and not by distinct and separate interests. It is entirely competent for the Legislature to fix the situs of personal property, belonging to incorporated and mercantile firms, for the purpose of taxation. Munson v. Crawford, 65–185.

§ 7. It shall be the duty of the county clerk to copy said numbers of school districts, so returned by the assessor, in the collector's book and to extend the school tax on each person's assessment of personal

property, according to the rate required by the amount designated by the directors of the school district in which such person resides. The computations of each person's tax and the levy made by the clerk, as aforesaid, shall be final and conclusive: Provided, the rate shall be uniform and shall not exceed that required by the amount certified by the board of directors.

1. Where the amount of school taxes, as extended by the county clerk, is in excess of the amount exhibited in the certificate of levy, an objector must show that some portion of this excess, if it in fact exists, was charged against his property. Thatcher v. The People, 79-597.

2. Even if a slight excess was equally distributed on each tract, that could not be held to substantially affect the justice of such taxes. It would be unheard of to hold a trifle to be substantially unjust and requiring the defeat of the collection of the revenue of the schools. Ibid.

§ 8. The county clerk before delivering the tax book to the collector, shall make out and send by mail, to each township treasurer in the county, a certificate of the amount due each district or fraction of a district in his township, of said taxes so levied and placed upon the tax books.

§ 9. On or before the first day of April next, after the delivery of the tax books containing the computation and levy of the said taxes, or so soon thereafter as the township treasurer shall present the said certificate of the amount of the said tax, and make a demand therefor, the said collector shall pay to said township treasurer the full amount of said tax so certified by the county clerk, or in case any part thereof remains uncollected, said collector shall, in addition to the amount collected, deliver to said township treasurer a statement of the uncollected taxes for each district of said township, taking of the township treasurer his receipt therefor, which receipt shall be evidence as well in favor of the collector as against the township treasurer. The said treasurer shall enter the amount collected in his books under the proper heads and pay the same out as provided for by this act.

1. The statute very plainly prescribes the duty of the collector. The path marked out must be pursued by him. Failing in this, there is necessarily a breach of his bond, and his sureties must respond. A strict compliance with the law must be required of all officials. Sureties must understand this, and if their principals are derelict they may be made to suffer. People v. Yeasel, 84-539.

2. School directors are required to ascertain as nearly as practicable, how much money must be raised by special tax for school purposes during the ensuing year, which amount shall be certified and returned to the township treasurer. But since the collector is allowed a commission of 2 per centum, it follows that the directors should add this sum to the amount they desire to produce to the treasury of the district, the whole constituting the true amount that must be raised for school purposes. People v. Wiltshire, 92-260. § 10. When a district is composed of parts of two or more townships, the directors shall determine and inform the collectors of said township, and the collector or collectors of the county or counties in which said townships lie, in writing, under their hands as directors, which of the treasurers of the townships, from which their district is formed, shall demand and receive the tax money collected by the said collectors as aforesaid.

§ 11. If any collector shall fail to pay the amount of said tax, or any part thereof as required by the provisions of section nine (9) of this article, of this act, it shall be competent of the township treasurer, or other authorized person, to proceed against said collector and his securities in an action of debt upon his official bond in any court of competent jurisdiction. And the said collector so in default shall pay 12 per centum on the amount due, to be assessed as damages, which shall be included in the judgment rendered against him: Provided, no collector shall be liable for such part of said tax as he shall be able to make appear that he could not have collected by law, until he has collected or may be able to so collect such amount.

1. It is the duty of the collector to pay over the district school taxes collected to the township treasurer. The statute provides that, on failure of the collector to pay such taxes to the treasurer on demand, it shall be competent for the treasurer or any authorized person to proceed against the collector and his sureties. Yet, it does not follow that the suit on the collector's bond must be brought for the use of the township treasurer. The statute is silent as to the person for whose use the action is to be brought in such case. Tappan v. The People, 62-339.

2. The recovery would be in trust for the several school districts wherein the taxes were levied. The avails of a recovery for the use of the trustees of schools would be paid into the hands of the township treasurer, to be by him held for the school districts, and to be paid out on the order of their boards of school directors. lbid.

3. The presentation of the certificate is not material in order to the paying over of the taxes by the collector. Neither is it an essential prerequisite to a right of action on the bond for taxes collected. The only purpose of presenting the certificate would seem to be, to acquaint the collector with the amount of district school taxes due the school district in the townships. After the time limited by the statute for their payment by him, the collecter should pay over these taxes which he has collected to the township treasurer on demand. Ibid.

4. In order to recover the 12 per centum on the amount due, the certificate should be presented. This percentage is in the nature of a penalty, and the statute, in respect to that, is to receive a strict construction. There is no duty on the part of the collector to pay this penalty, except as it has accrued by the very terms of the statute. Without an averment of the presentation of this certificate, a declaration is defective in making out a title to this penalty, and for the want of such averment, a demurrer to the assignment of breach for the non-payment of 12 per centum of the amount of the taxes due, should be sustained. Ibid.

5. Although the language of the section is that the collector, so in default, shall pay 12 per centum of the amount due, to be assessed as damages, which shall be included in the judgment rendered against him, it was not intended that, in a joint action against the collector and his sureties, there should be a joint judgment against them all for the taxes collected, and a separate judgment against the collector alone for this percentage. That would be in violation of the rule that, in a joint action on a contract, there can be but one judgment, and that against all the defendants. Ibid.

6. As to the judgment for an aggregate sum, without specifying the amounts due the respective districts, that would seem to be a matter in which only the township treasurer and the school districts are interested. Had the taxes been paid over to the township treasurer on demand, they could have been received as an aggregate sum.

Ibid.

7. The law provides a specific and particular way by which a director may obtain money by special taxation for the purpose of maintaining schools, and when directors seek to recover money due them in their official character,