
    Ernest B. Dane vs. Treasurer and Receiver General.
    Suffolk.
    June 22, 1920.
    July 7, 1920.
    Present: Rugg, C. J., Braley, DeCourcy, Crosby, & Carroll, JJ.
    
      Constitutional Law, Taxation, Distribution of income tax, Equal protection of laws, Due process of law. Tax, On income.
    
      Dane v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 234 Mass. 42, affirmed.
    Petition, filed on April 15, 1920, and afterwards amended, by a taxable inhabitant of the town of Brookline, for a writ of mandamus commanding the Treasurer and Receiver General “not to distribute or pay over any portion of the tax for the year 1920 raised under the provisions of St. 1916, c. 269, from the petitioner or from any other inhabitant of the town of Brookline to any other city or town until the further order of the court.”
    The respondent demurred. The case came on to be heard before Rugg, C. J., upon the amended petition and the demurrer, and, being of opinion that the question of law raised by the demurrer ought to be determined by the full court before further proceedings, he reported the case for such determination.
    
      W. H. Hitchcock, for the respondent,
    submitted the case upon his brief filed in the case of Dane v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 234 Mass. 42.
    
      P. Nichols & R. A. Stewart, for the petitioner, also submitted the case upon the petitioner’s brief in that case.
   Rugg, C. J.

The record in this case presents no facts differing in any substantial particular from those before the court in Duffy v. Treasurer & Receiver General and Dane v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 234 Mass. 42. The case at bar is governed by the decision in those cases. For the reasons there stated the entry may be

Petition dismissed.  