
    T. Baker v. H. Black and others.
    The law regulating common schools does not authorize levying a second tax within three years, in consequence of changing the boundaries of the district, where the tax exceeds one hundred and fifty dollars, and the owner and more than one-third of the householders taxed are non-residents.
    This cause was adjourned here for decision from the county of ELuron. It was a bill in chancery, the object of which was to enjoin the collection of a tax levied for the erection of a schoolhouse. The bill stated that the complainant owned five entire lots of ground, and the half of a sixth lot in the township of Ridgefield, in the county of Huron. That the lots. No. 1, No. 12, and the half-lot, No. 13, on February 4, 1826, were situate in school district No. 1, in the township of Ridgefield, and the others were in school district No. 2, of the same township. That in August, 1829, in school district No. 2, a tax was assessed, and levied, and collected, for the erection of a school-house, at which time the lots in that district, 16, 17, and 20, were assessed, and the assessment paid. That in March, 1830, the boundaries of the school districts were changed, so as to include lots 16, 17, and 20 in district No. 1. That in November, 1831, a part of the inhabitants of school district No. 1, assessed a tax of two hundred dollars on the district for the erection of a school-house, and apportioned a part of this tax on the lots 16, 17, and 20, assessed for the same purpose, in 1829, in district No. 2. That at the time of making this assessment, there was a good school-house in district No. 1, where it was proposed to erect the new one. That the complainant did not reside, and never had resided, in Ridgefield township. That more than one-third of the land assessed to raise the tax of two hundred dollars, was owned by persons, who, at the time the tax was levied, resided out of the district. That the defendant, Morse, appointed treasurer of the school district, was proceeding to collect the tax upon the lots 16, 17, and 20, and had made a seizure of property for that purpose. The whole proceedings were claimed to be illegal, and an injunction prayed for, to stay them, as also a 54] Sprayer for general relief. There is a general demurrer to the bill.
   Collett, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The statute to provide for the support of common schools gives jurisdiction to this court in cases like the one presented by this bill. Sections 13, 14, and 15 of that statute provide that where less than two-thirds of the property subject to taxation, in a school district, is owned by persons residing within it, no single tax exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars shall be levied by the inhabitants to erect, repair, complete, or furnish a school-house that no land of a non-resident of the district, once taxed to erect, repair, complete, or furnish a school-house for the district, shall, by any alteration of its boundaries, be again taxed for the same purpose until the expiration of three years.

The facts shown in the bill bring the complainant’s case clearly within two of the statutory provisions here enumerated. The assessment exceeds one hundred and fifty dollars; the lots in question belong to a non-resident, and had paid tax for the same-purpose within the last three years. The fact that the defendant and more than ono-third of the landholdez’s to be taxed are nonresidents, being chaz-ged in the bill, are admitted by the demurrer. The tax is clearly illegally assessed. The complainant appears entitled to the relief he seeks. The demurrer is, therefore, overruled.  