Case Name: JAMES H. KNOWLTON vs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCK COUNTY, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1859-11-09
Citations: 9 Wis. 410
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES H. KNOWLTON vs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCK COUNTY, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 410–449

Head Matter:
JAMES H. KNOWLTON vs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROCK COUNTY, Appellants.
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, ROCK COUNTS’.
Heard October 6.]
[Decided November 9, 1859.
Constitutional Law — Taxes—Injunction—Municipal Corporation — Pauper—Poor— Quia Timet.
The charter of the city of Janesville included within its limits a large quantity of farming lands; and also provided, “that in no case shall the real and personal properly within the territorial limits of said city, and not included within the territorial limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any additions to said village, which may be used, occupied, or reserved for agricultural or horticultural purposes, be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city, exceeding one-half of one per cent., nor for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and the support of the poor, more than one-half as much on each dollar’s valuation shall be levied for such purposes on the property within such recorded plats; nor shall the same be subject to any tax other than before mentioned, for any city purpose whatever.” And the clerk of the city made out the taxes according to the provisions of the charter, and the treasurer of the county sold the unoccupied lots of the plaintiff for the non-payment of taxes so levied not as on agricultural lands, though they did not lie within the limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or any of its additions; held that the taxes so levied on the lots are void, as being in violation of g 1, Art. VIII. of the constitution of Wisconsin, which provides that “the rule of taxation shall be uniform, and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall direct.” And the court will enjoin the making of a deed upon such a sale.
Courts of equity in this state will, by way of preventing the creation upon the record of a cloud upon the owner’s title, interfere, by injunction, to restrain the execution and delivery of a deed of lands sold for taxes, which have been illegally or improperly assessed.
Taxes are the burdens or charges imposed by the legislative power of a state upon persons or property for public use; and the power to tax is one of the essential attributes of sovereignty, inherent in, and necessary to the existence of every government; and this power would be unlimited, except by the integrity and sense of justice of the legislature, but for constitutional restrictions.
The theory of our government is, that socially and politically, all are equal, and that special or exclusive, social or political privileges or immunities cannot be granted, and ought not to be enjoyed; and, therefore, the burdens of supporting the government should be borne equally by all the individuals composing it, in proportion to the benefits conferred. To give permanency and force, and secure its rigid observance, limitations or restrictions were introduced into the constitution of this state.
The levying of taxes by the authorities of a county, city, or town, for their support, is as much an exercise of the taxing power, as when levied directly by the state for its support. The state acts by the municipal governments, and their acts in levying taxes are as much the act of the state as if the state acted by its own officers.
The constitution of this state requires, as a rule in levying taxes, that the valuation must be uniform, and the rate uniform, or in all cases alike, or equal, operating alike upon all the taxable property throughout the territorial limits of the state, or municipality within or for which the tax is to be raised. And where the legislature prescribed a different rule, the act is a departure from the constitution, and therefore void.
The constitution has fixed one unbending, uniform rule of taxation for the state, and property cannot be classified and taxed as classed by different rules.
The provisions of the constitution that, “ taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall direct,” does not sanction a discrimination which provides for taxing a particular kind of property for the support of government by a different rule from that by which other property is taxed; for when the kind of property is prescribed, the rule of taxation must be uniform. All kinds of property must be taxed uniformly, or be absolutely exempt.
The support of the poor is a matter of common concern, and the expense thereof must be borne by the whole corporation, and therefore, where the charter of a city provided that certain property should pay but one-half as much upon the dollar’s valuation as other property in the same city; held, that in that respect the provision is unconstitutional and void.
This was an action by the respondent against the appellants in the court below, to restrain the issuing and delivery of a tax deed, and to declare void the taxes assessed oh the property of the respondent. The complaint sets forth that the respondent is the owner of several lots in the plat of the village of Rockport; and that in the year 1854, these lots were set down and valued in the assessment roll of the city of Janes-ville, and taxed at sums varying from $1,28 to $3,41 a lot; that these lots were set down in the1' assessment roll with other lots and blocks in the city, and not in a separate part of the assessment roll; that they were, at the time of making such assessment vacant and unoccupied lots, not used for any purpose, but were kept for sale as village lots by the owner thereof; but they were not set down in the assessment as being owned by any person, nor as unknown or non-resident lands; that being assessed to no one, the taxes were not demanded from any person, nor were they paid, but the treasurer of the city returned the same as delinquent lands, and the taxes as unpaid to the county treasurer of Rock county, who afterwards, at a sale of lands for taxes, held on the second Tuesday of April, 1855, sold the lots for the amounts of the taxes and charges. That on the 16th of July, 1857, John Y. L. Thomas caused a notice to be published in a newspaper in the county of Rock, which was continued for twelve weeks. The notice was as follows:
“ Notice is hereby given, that the following described lands, situate in the county of Rock, and State of Wisconsin, were sold on Tuesday, the tenth day of April, A. D., 1855, the same being the second Tuesday in said month, for taxes, costs, and charges due thereon, for the year 1854, and that the same are still unredeemed. Now, therefore, unless the said lands shall be redeemed from such sale on or before the 10th day of April, A. D., 1858, being three years from the date of the several certificates of sale of said lands, the same, or such parcels thereof as shall remain unredeemed at the date last aforesaid, will be forfeited and conveyed to the purchaser thereof. The amounts stated below include the taxes, charges, and interest calculated to the last day of redemption.” (Here followed the lists of lots and amounts due.) That Thomas, as such clerk, declares that he will execute and deliver deeds for all that shall remain unredeemed at and after the date named in the notice.
The plaintiffs complaint further showed, that by the charter of the city of Janesville, in the year 1854, it was, among other things, provided that “the rule of taxation in said city should be uniform: provided, that in no case should the real or personal property within the territorial limits of said city, and not included within the limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any addition to said village, which might be used, occupied, or reserved for agricultural or horti cultural purposes, be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city, exceeding one-half of one per cent, nor for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and the support of the poor, more than one-half as much on each dollar’s valuation as should be levied for such purpose on the property within such recorded plats, nor should the farming or gardening lands be subject to any tax other than before mentioned for any city purposes whateverthat in said year there were a large amount in value of farming lands within the city, not being within any recorded plat. And that the clerk of the city of Janesville, in making out the tax roll for the city for the year 1854, and in ascertaining the amount of taxes to be assessed and levied upon and apportioned to each lot or parcel of land in the city, as well as personal property, calculated the amount of the taxes to be assessed and levied upon and apportioned to the lands and personal property not included within the limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, nor of the additions thereto, and reserved and used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, for defraying the current expenses of the city at one-half of one per cent, on each dollar’s valuation thereof; and for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and the support of the poor only one-half as much on each dollar’s valuation as on lands and property included within such recorded plots, and at the same time he assessed and levied upon and apportioned to all property in said city, included within any recorded plot, one percent, on each dollar’s valuation thereof for defraying the current expenses of the city for the then current year. And that the village of Rockport is not an addition to the village of Janesville, but was surveyed, laid out, and platted into a town or village plat, and the lots and blocks thereon designated, long before the village of Janesville was laid out or surveyed, or platted into a town or village plat; notwithstanding which, the clerk made the same discrimination against the lots in assessing, levying, and apportioning taxes to the lots therein as in cases of the lots in the village of Janesville, or any of the additions thereto, and levying the same per cent, on the dollar’s valuation in each case; and that it was under such provision of law, and of such unequal, and unjust, and ununiform rule of taxation that the taxes in the city of Janesville, for the year 1854, were levied and assessed, and the sales of said lots were made, and that Thomas declares that he will convey all of the lots which shall remain unredeemed after this day.
And this plaintiff alleges that the assessment roll, in so far as regards the lots, is illegal and void for not setting down the lots as being owned by some pérson, or as unknown or nonresident lands, as required by law. That the notice of the clerk of the board of supervisors is illegal and void in this, that it sets forth the lots as unknown, when in fact and in truth they were not so entered in the assessment roll. That the tax is illegal and void, and the sales and certificates are illegal and void, on account of the unequal and ununiform rule of taxation in this city, for the year 1854, on the property in the city, and for other reasons - appearing on the record thereof.
The complaint then prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from making the deeds, &c. This complaint was sworn to by A. Hyatt Smith, as the agent of the plaintiff, and his affidavit also sets forth some other facts. Upon the complaint and affidavit the circuit judge granted a temporary injunction.
To this complaint the defendants filed a general demurrer, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. And the circuit court decided that the demurrer of the defendants to the complaint must be overruled. From which the defendants brought this appeal.
J. Ji, Sleeper, for the respondent.
D, Noggle, for the appellants.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Dixon, C. J.
Section 2, of subdivision 5, of chap. 93, of the Local Laws of 1853, entitled "an act to incorporate the City of Janesville," provides that the common council of said city " shall annually levy a tax upon all the taxable property in said city subject to taxation, not exceeding one per cent, to defray the current expenses of the city; and also an additional tax of such sum as they may deem necessary for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and for the support of the poor." Beside the recorded plat of the village of Janesville and its additions, there was, by the act, included within the corporate limits of the city, a large quantity of the adjacent farming or agricultural lands. The own ers of these farming lands conceiving themselves too greatly and unequally burthened by taxation for the support of the new city government, applied to the legislature at the session of 1854, for a modification of the rule of taxation as prescribed in the section above quoted, when it was enacted, § 5, chap. 179, Local Laws, 1854, "that in no case shall the real and personal property within the territorial limits of said city and not included within the territorial limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any additions to said village, which may be used, occupied or reserved for agricultural or horticultural purposes, be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city exceeding one half of one per cent., nor for the repair and building of roads and bridges and the support of the poor, more than one half as much on each dollar's valuation shall be levied for such purposes on the property within such recorded plats ; nor shall the same be subject to any tax for any of the purposes mentioned in § 3, of chap. 5, of the act of which this is amenda-tory; nor shall the said farming land be subject to any tax other than before mentioned, for any purpose whatsoever." Subsequently, in the same session, this section was amended, or intended so to be, (for by mistake undoubtedly § four, instead of § five, is named in the amendatory act,) as to make the last sentence read, " nor shall the said farming or gardening lands be subject to any tax other than before mentioned for any city purpose whatever." (See chap. 286, Local Laws of 1854.) In pursuance of these provisions the city clerk so made out the tax roll for the year 1854, that the taxes for defraying the current expenses of the city for said year were levied upon the real and personal property within the recorded plat and its additions, at the rate of one per cent, on each dollar of the assessed value, and upon the real and personal property without the plat and its additions, at the rate of one half of one per cent, of the assessed value. Several lots de scribed in the complaint in this action, and of which the plaintiff is now the owner, in the village of Rockport, which lies near to the village and within the corporate limits of the " city of Janesville, and which the city clerk treated as an addition to the village of Janesville, apportioning to them the taxes, for city purposes, at the rate of one per cent, upon their assessed value, were returned by the treasurer of the city to the county treasurer, " delinquent," and by the latter sold to satisfy the taxes due and unpaid thereon, and certificates of sale were issued on the second Tuesday of April, 1855. In July, 1857, the defendant, Thomas, as clerk of the board of supervisors of the county of Rock, published, in the usual form, in a newspaper printed in said county, a notice, in which, after reciting that the said lots described in the complaint, were, among others, sold on the second Tuesday of April, 1855, for taxes, costs and charges, due thereon for the year 1854, and were still unredeemed; he stated that unless the same should be redeemed from such sale on or before the 10th day of April, 1858, (being three years from the date of the several certificates of sale,) the same or such parcels thereof as should remain unredeemed at said last mentioned date, would be forfeited and conveyed to the purchaser thereof. To perpetually restrain the execution and delivery of conveyance pursuant to such sales and notice, and to have the taxes and sales declared illegal and void, this action was commenced. Several questions are raised by the complaint as to the manner in which the lots in question were set down in the assessment roll, and the mode in which they were returned, and also as to whether the village of Rockport is to be considered as an addition to the village of Janesville, within the provisions of the statute, the same having in fact been laid out and platted before the village of Janesville was laid out and platted, which, under the view we have taken of the case, it will not become necessary for us to consider.- By far the most important ques tion involved in the case is, whether the foregoing provisions of the charter of the city of Janesville are or are not in conflict with § 1, of Art. VIII, of the constitution, which is in the following words : " The rule of taxation shall be uniform, and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall direct." It was to this point that arguments of counsel were mostly directed, and for reasons existing outside of the present controversy, we were earnestly solicited by both sides to determine the case upon it. In view of these reasons, and because the question is fairly raised, we feel disposed to yield to the wishes of counsel, and shall therefore make it the only point of investigation. For this purpose the foregoing statement sufficiently embodies the facts alleged in the complaint. The complaint was demurred to by the defendants^ for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The circuit judge overruled the demurrer, and from his decision the defendants appealed. It has frequently been adjudged by this court that courts of equity in this state will, by way of preventing the creation upon the record of a cloud upon the owner's title, interfere by injunction to restrain the execution and delivery of a deed of lands sold for taxes, which have been illegally or improperly assessed.
It will be seen that these statutes, which were carried into effect in the assessment and levying of the taxes for the year 1854, provide for two distinct and unequal rates of taxation upon the same kinds of property for the support of the city government, the one an ad valorem tax of one per cent., upon the real and personal property within the recorded plat and its additions, the other an ad valorem tax of one half of one per cent., upon the real and personal property without the plat and its addition. The statutory requirements as to the levying and collection of taxes for the building and repairing of roads and bridges and the support of the poor, were also complied with. But since there is some difference of opinion and conflict of authority, as to whether the word " taxation," in its ordinary sense, and as used in written constitutions, does or does not include assessments made for the purpose of building, repairing and improving roads, bridges and streets ; and if such be the sense in which it is used in our constitution, whether or not it is modified or controlled by § 3, of Art. XI, of the same instrument; while all agree that it does extend to taxes levied for the purpose of revenue, whether such revenue be applied to the support of town, city, county or state government; and that in this respect it is not affected by § 3, of Art. XI, we propose to confine ourselves to that branch of the present case, which involves an inquiry into the power of the legislature to provide different rates of taxation upon property within the same municipal corporation for revenue purposes merely, leaving the other branch of the case to be settled in some one of the numerous cases in which it has been raised and so fully and ably discussed, at this present term.
Taxes are defined to be rates or sums of money assessed on the personal property of citizens by government, for the use of the nation or state; or, as the government sometimes exacts from individuals, services, as well as money, a more enlarged and correct definition would be, that they are burdens or charges imposed by the legislative power of a state upon persons or property for public uses. Taxation is the act of laying a tax, or imposing these burdens or charges upon persons or property within the state.. It is the process or means by which the taxing power is exercised. The power of taxation is one of the essential attributes of sovereignty, and is inherent in and necessary to the existence of every government. In republics it is vested in the legislature, and in the absence of any constitutional restrictions, may be exercised by them, both as to objects and modes, to any extent which they may" deem proper. It is then a matter of legislative discretion with which the courts can seldom or never interfere. In such ca ses the only guaranties against an abuse of this discretion, by harsh or unjust taxation, consists in the integrity and sense of justice of the legislature, their " responsibility to the people," and the power of the people, through the frequent recurrence of elections for the choice of new members to correct any evils which may have crept in. Such we believe has been the case with nearly all and is still with a majority of the states comprising the Union. In several, however, and among others, in our own, the people have seen fit, by constitutional provisions, to limit and direct this power, and thus to guard against its abuse. The theory of our government is, that socially and politically all are equal, and that special or exclusive, social or political privileges or immunities, cannot be granted, and ought not to be enjoyed. In consonance with this theory, that of taxation, whether as the subject of legislative action, judicial inquiry, or constitutional law, has always been, that the burdens of supporting the government should be borne equally by all the individuals composing it, in proportion to the benefits conferred, and that the tax payer receives for the money exacted, a just compensation by the protection afforded his person and property by the proper application of the tax. This principle of justice and equality which requires that each person should contribute towards the public expenses his proportionate share, according to the advantages which he receives, lies at the foundation of our political system; and, in our opinion, it was to give to it a greater permanency and force, and to secure its more rigid observance, that the section above quoted was introduced into the constitution. We have already said that all are agreed that the levying of taxes by the properly constituted authorities of a county, city or town government, for their support, is as much an exercise of the taxing power as when they are levied directly by the state for its support. There is no difference on principle or authority. It is all taxation for the purpose of revenue or the support of government. The government of the state cannot be carried on except through the medium or agency of these municipal corporations or local sovereignties, and their acts in this behalf are as much the acts of the state, as if it directly performed them by means of its own officers.
We are of opinion that the rule of uniformity prescribed by the constitution, applies as directly to the question we are now considering, as it would were it a case where the legislature, in consideration of some supposed advantage which one portion of the state had over another, had levied upon such portion an ad valorem tax of double the amount which was levied upon the residue. For as each of these municipalities or local subdivisions of government are created, because it is believed that the interests and welfare of all the persons embraced within its territorial limits, will be thereby mutually and equally promoted, it follows that the burdens or charges for its support or revenue should be equally borne by all; and as the rights and interests of all the owners of property are •alike benefited and protected by its operation, it also follows that when property is the object of taxation, it should all alike, in proportion to its value, contribute towards paying the expense of such benefits and protection. These are plain and obvious propositions of equity and justice, sustained as we believe by the very letter and spirit of the constitution. Its mandate it is true, is very brief, but long enough for all practical purposes ; long enough to embrace within it clearly and concisely the doctrine which the framers intended to establish, viz: that of equality. " The rule of taxation shall be uniform," that is to say, the course or mode of proceeding in levying •or laying taxes shall be uniform; it shall in all cases be alike. The act of laying a tax on property consists of several distinct steps, such as the assessment or fixing of its value, the establishing of the rate, &c.; and in order to have the rule or course of proceeding uniform, each step taken must be uniform. The valuation must be uniform, the rate must be uniform. Thus uniformity in such a proceeding becomes equality ; and there can be no uniform rule which is not at the same time an equal rule, operating alike upon all the taxable property throughout the territorial limits of the state, municipality or local subdivision of the government, within and for which the tax is to be raised. The legislature, in accordance with sound principle and the spirit of the constitution, have provided that property shall be taxed according to its value; but in the instances before us, have departed from them by providing that the property, real and personal, in one portion of a municipal corporation, throughout which it is supposed to be alike benefited, shall bear according to its value a larger amount of the public charges for its support than the property in the other portion. It may be as was claimed by counsel that the legislature acted unwisely or perhaps unjustly in including within the territorial limits of the city so much farming or agricultural land, but that is not a matter for judicial correction. Neither is it a matter for them to correct by discrimination in taxation, when the constitution has declared that there shall be no discrimination. The remedy lies in a repeal or an amendment of the charter.
It was contended in argument that as those provisions fixed one uniform rate without the recorded plats and another within them, thus taxing all the property without alike, and all within alike, they do not infringe the constitution. In other words, that, for the purpose of taxation, the legislature have the right arbitrarily to divide up and classify the property of the citizens, and having done so, they do not violate the constitutional rule of uniformity, provided all the property within a given class is rated alike.
The answer to this argument is, that it creates different rules of taxation to the number of which there is no limit, except that fixed by legislative discretion, whilst the constitution establishes but one fixed, unbending, uniform rule upon the subject. It is believed that if the legislature can by classification thus arbitrarily and without regard to value, discriminate in the same municipal corporation between personal and real property within, and personal and real property without, a recorded plat, they can also, by the same means, discriminate between lands used for one purpose and those used for another; such as lands used for growing wheat and those used for growing corn, or any other crop; meadow lands and pasture lands; cultivated and uncultivated lands; or they can classify by the description, such as odd numbered lots and blocks, and even numbered ones, or odd and even numbered sections. Personal property can be classified by its character, use or description, or as in the present case, by its location, and thus the rules of taxation may be multiplied to an extent equal in number to the different kinds, uses, descriptions and locations of real and personal properly. We do not see why the system may not be carried further and the classification be made by the character, trade, profession or business of the owners. For certainly this rule of uniformity can as well be applied to such a classification as any other, and thus the constitutional provision be saved intact. Such a construction would make the constitution operative only to the extent of prohibiting the legislature from discriminating in favor of particular individuals, and would reduce the people, while considering so grave and important a proposition, to the ridiculous attitude of saying to the legislature, " you shall not discriminate between single individuals or corporations, but you may divide the citizens up into different classes as the followers of different trades, professions, or kinds of business, or as the owners of different species or descriptions of property, and legislate for one class and against another, as much as you please, provided you serve all of the favored or unfavored classes alikethus affording a direct and solemn constitutional sanction to a system of taxation so manifestly and grossly unjust, that it will not find an apologist anywhere, at least outside of those who are the recipients of its favors. We do not believe the framers of that instrument intended such a construction, and therefore cannot adopt it.
On the other hand, we are of the opinion that these are the very mischiefs which they intended to guard against and prevent. Single individuals have seldom acquired such an influence over the legislative mind as to secure to themselves the advantages arising from such legislation. There was little danger to be apprehended from that source ; but the combined influence and efforts of corporations and classes had. Such evils had been sorely felt in many of the older states ; it was against them and all other unjust discriminations, that the people intended to provide. It cannot change the principle, nor is it a source of consolation to the unfortunate individuals or classes whose money is thus extorted from them, that it is distributed by government among many, instead of being applied to the benefit of a single person or corporation. It is also contended that under the last clause of the section, " and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall prescribe," this discrimination is sanctioned ; that by it the legislature have the right, in prescribing the property which shall bear the burdens of taxation, to specify certain kinds or species of property, and to entirely omit or exempt others; and that if they have the right to wholly exempt, they can do so partially, by saying that it shall pay a certain portion of the taxes, or that it shall be taxed at a certain rate lower than other taxable property, or that it shall pay a certain sum in lieu of all other taxation. Without stopping to consider, whether this clause does or-does not confer upon the legislature a power of general or specific discrimination as to what property shall be (axed, as is contended by some that it does not, but conceding that it does, and that the legislature may, by omitting to prescribe, exempt certain property from taxation, and that its effect is the same as if it contained a distinct grant of power to exempt, still we think this argument must fail; for the very moment that the legislature say that a specific article or kind of property shall be taxed, or shall contribute at all towards the expense of government, from that very moment the first clause of the section takes effect, and it must be taxed by the uniform rule. The legislature can only "prescribe," and when they have done that, the first clause of the section governs the residue of the proceeding. There cannot be any medium ground between absolute exemption and uniform taxation.
Upon the argument we. were referred to, and much stress was laid by the defendant's counsel as an authority sustaining his positions, upon the decision of this court in the case of The Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad Co. vs. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Waukesha, and others, made at the June term, 1855. Upon examination of the records and files of the court in that case, we can find neither head note nor opinion. As a matter of fact, we are told that none were ever written. We are therefore without any authoritative information as to the points there determined, or the views taken by the court; and under such circumstances, we can hardly say that we should not consider the questions there involved as still open. However, from the best information we have been able to obtain, we are relieved from any embarrassment growing out of the doctrines which it was claimed by counsel were established by it; as we learn that it was determined by the court that no question of the exercise of the taxing power was involved in it. The written opinion of the circuit judge in the same case will be found reported in volume two, page 616, of the American Law Reg ister. The majority of the court have with great confidence come to the conclusion that so much of § 5, of chap. 179, of the Local Laws of 1854, as provides that the real and personal property within the territorial limits of the city of Janes-ville, and not included within the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any of the additions to said village, which may be used, occupied or reserved for agricultural or horticultural purposes, shall in no case be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city, exceeding one half of one per cent., whilst by a previously existing law, the residue of the real and personal property within said city is liable to a tax of one per cent, for the same purpose, is unconstitutional and void; and that therefore the judgment of the circuit court overruling the demurrer to the complaint in this action, must be affirmed. Inasmuch as the support of the poor is a matter of common concern, the expense of which is to be borne by the whole corporation, we may add! hat in that respect also the section is unconstitutional and void.
Judgment affirmed.