
    Verona Borough School District’s Appeal. [Speer et al. v. Verona Borough School District.]
    After the school directors of a school district have levied an annual tax for school purposes, they cannot levy another tax for the same purpose during the same year, under the Act of May 8,1854.
    March 25, 1889.
    Appeal, No. 34, Oct. T. 1889, from O. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., to review a decree awarding an injunction on a bill in equity to restrain the collection of a tax, wherein James P. Speer et al. were complainants and the School District of the Borough of Yerona, and J. K. Simpson, tax collector, were defendants, at Dec. T. 1888, No. 570. G-eeen and Williams, JJ., absent.
    The bill averred, in substance:
    1. The complainants are residents and owners of real and personal estate within the borough of Yerona, in the county of Allegheny.
    2. The School District of the borough of Yerona, is duly created and organized under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. B. F. Reynolds is president and A. H. Rowand, Jr., is secretary thereof, and J. K. Simpson is the collector of school taxes in said district for said year 1887.
    3. In June, 1887, the board of school directors of said district, assessed and levied a tax of eight mills on the property of complainants, and other taxable citizens and residents of said borough, for the maintenance and operation of the schools in said borough for the year 1887, and complainants hold receipts of said collector of school taxes, for school taxes for the year 1887. And your orators are informed, believe and therefore aver that said assessment was ample and sufficient for said purpose for which it was assessed.
    
      á. In December, 1887, said board wrongfully, and without any authority of law for so doing, assessed and levied another and further tax of four mills upon the property of complainants, and other taxable citizens and residents of said borough, for the same purposes, for the same school year, as complainants are informed, as the previous assessment of June, 1887, aforesaid, and have prepared a warrant, for the collection of said illegal assessment, to said J. K. Simpson, and that said defendants are threatening to proceed to collect said last mentioned and illegal tax from complainants, and other taxable residents of said district, by distress and sale of the property aforesaid of complainants, and other taxable residents of said district, under said warrant. Your orators further aver that they are advised and believe that said last mentioned assessment of December, 1887, is without authority of law, illegal and unjust, that neither they nor their property are liable to said second and illegal assessment of December, 1887, and that a distress and sale of the said property of complainant, as threatened for the collection thereof, would subject your orators to injury and damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
    The bill prayed : 1. That, by a preliminary injunction now, to be hereafter made perpetual, said defendants, and each of them, may be enjoined and restrained from collecting the tax of four mills, aforesaid, levied upon the property of your orators in said borough, in December, 1887. 2. That, by a preliminary injunction now, to be hereafter made perpetual, said defendants, and each of them, may he restrained from distraining or levying upon, selling, or in any manner interfering with the property of your orators, or proceeding in any manner against your orators on their property, for or on account of said assessment and levy in December, 1887. 3. General relief.
    The affidavit of B. F. Reynolds, which seems to have ■ been treated as an answer to the bill, averred, in substance: The term for the school year had been fixed at ten months, and teachers employed for that term. New school buildings were being erected, and, subsequent to the June levy, the roof of the school building was found to be in bad repair. Severe storms occurred and injured the school property, which had not been foreseen, and, in order to protect said property and furnish new buildings, this tax of December, 1887, was levied ; without doing this it would have been impossible to maintain schools or protect school property. The special tax was levied for this purpose. It further denied that the same was levied without authority of law.
    After argument on bill and answer, the court delivered the following opinion, by Collier, J.:
    “We fully appreciate the difficulties that the boai’d of directors labor under in this case, as disclosed by the answer filed and affidavits; but the Act of Assembly gives the directors no power to make a second levy for the same purpose.
    “ The plain words of the Act are, that, for school purposes, the directors shall annually levy a tax for school purposes. After this has been done, no other tax can be levied for the same purpose during the same year. 2 Whart. Dig. 610, a decision of the state superintendent of public schools.
    “ There is nothing in this case to take it out of the general rule, and the injunction must be granted as prayed. Let a decree be drawn up and submitted.”
    The court entered the following decree:
    “And, now, to wit, Nov. 24, 1888, this cause came on to be heard on a motion for a preliminary injunction, and was argued by counsel for all parties, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, the complainants having given bond as required by the Act of Assembly, it is ordered that an injunction issue pursuant to the prayers in said bill filed in this case until further order of this court.”
    
      The assignment of error specified the action of the court in entering the decree for injunction, quoting it.
    
      J. P. Hunter, for appellants.
    In the absence of any express legislative grant, school directors have full power to levy all taxes necessary for the exercise of the powers granted to them. Dill. Mun. Corp. 741; U. S. v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381; Com. v. Allegheny Co., 37 Pa. 290; Com. v. Pittsburgh, 34 Pa. 523; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 465; Washington Ave., 69 Pa. 363; Benoist v. St. Louis, 19 Mo. 184; New Orleans v. Cotton Press Co., 6 Rod., La. 411.
    The Act of May 8, 1854, §§ 28, 30, is directory and not mandatory.
    Statutes prescribing the time within which an act shall be done, without any negative or prohibitory words, are directory. State v. Harris, 17 Ohio, 608; Turnpike Road v. Co., 1 Ohio St. 150; Williams v. School Dist., 19 Pick. 379; Thomas v. Clapp, 20 Barb. 167; Pond v. Negus, 3 Mass. 231; Gale v. Mead, 2 Denois, 161; Lowell v. Hadley, 8 Metx 180; Foot v. Prowse, 1 Strange, 625.
    The additional tax was authorized by § 33 the Act of May 8, 1854, authorizing a special tax for building or erecting school buildings.
    
      Wm. R. Blair, not heard, for appellees.
    The directors having levied one tax in 1887 have exhausted their power'of taxation for that year.
    The special tax provided for in § 33 of the Act of 1854, must be contained in the same duplicate as the regular, tax, and must be collected at the same time and in the same manner.
    Tnis court has declared that it will not inquire into the methods by which the power of school directors are exercised. Wharton v. Directors, 42 Pa. 358.
    
      The taxing power should be strictly construed. Cooley on Taxation, 209; Gearhart v. Dixon, 1 Pa. 224; Oliver v. Carsner, 39 Texas, 396.
    March 25, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed.  