
    NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., Respondent, v. DIXSON, County Treasurer, Appellant.
    (No. 4,205.)
    (Submitted June 15, 1918.
    Decided July 11, 1918.)
    [174 Pac. 706.]
    
      Taxation — Railroads — Block-signal System — By Whom Taxable.
    
    1. Held, that a block-signal system which is located on the roadbed of a transcontinental railroad and attached to the rails in such a manner as to be operated automatically by passing trains is assessable by the state board of equalization and not by any county assessor.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Stillwater County; Albert P. Stark, Judge.
    
    Action by the Northern Pacific Railway Company against E. B. Dixson, as treasurer of Stillwater County, Montana. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Mr. 8. G. Ford, Attorney General, and Mr. Frank Woody, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant, submitted a brief; Mr. Woody argued the cause orally.
    
      Messrs. Gkmn, Bosch & Hall, for Respondent, submitted a brief; Mr. M. S. Gunn argued the cause orally.
   MR. JUSTICE SANNER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint in this ease is similar to that presented in Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Murray, ante, p. 162, 174 Pac. 704, except that it involves,the block-signal system of the Northern Pacific Railway as the same traverses Stillwater county. The appellant treasurer of Stillwater county filed a general demurrer, which was overruled, and he, declining to plead further, suffered judgment to be entered according to the prayer of the complaint, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

Since, as the complaint avers, the block-signal system “is located on the roadbed and adjacent to the track of said railroad, and is attached to the track and the rails thereof” in such a manner as to be operated automatically by passing trains, it comes within the rule announced in the Murray decision relative to the trolley line, and is assessable by the state board of equalization, and not by the county assessor.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.  