
    William J. Wilson vs. George R. Buckman.
    It was competent for the legislature to authorize the levy and collection of a tax for the purposes mentioned in Oha/p. 8 of-the laws enacted at the extra session of 1863, or to ratify and legalize such tax if if was levied without legal authority.
    This action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace in Waseca count)’'. On the trial the facts were admitted. It' appears that in and for the year 1861 and in and for the year 1865, a tax of-mills on the dollar was duly levied in the town of Ótisco in said county, for the purpose of paying the bounties offered by said town to volunteers in the IT. S. service,'under and in pursuance of the provisions of eha/pter 8 of the extra Session Laws of 1862, and acts amendatory and supplemental thereto; that the sum of ten dollars and sixty cents was plaintiff’s bounty tax so levied upon his personal property, and that the same is delinquent and unpaid; that said town issued orders to certain soldiers, pursuant to the provisions of eha/p. 3, Session Laws of 1866; that in 1867 the defendant, who was then treasurer of said county, for the purpose of collecting said tax, seized-upon and distrained certain personal property of the plaintiff and advertised it for sale. This action was brought to recover the possession of this property. In the Justice’s Court judgment was rendered for the defendant, and upon an appeal to the District Court for said county the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff appeals therefrom to this Court.
    Ba*tohelder & Buokham for Appellant.
    G-. E. Cole for Respondent.
   Wilson, Oh. J.

JBy the Cowrt We have held.that it was competent for the legislature to authorize the levy and collection of a tax for the purposes mentioned in Chap. 8 of the laws enacted at the extra session of the legislature in 1862, and that if such tax was levied without legal authority it was in the power of: the legislature to ratify and legalize it. Comer vs. Folsom p. 219, ante; Kunkle vs. Town of Franklin, p. 127, ante.

The invalidity of the Loaos of 1865-6, referred to by appellant’s counsel, has nothing to do with the legality of this tax.- Those laws do not purport to affect in any way taxes of this kind, or to repeal or modify the laws authorizing such taxes, and if they are invalid as claimed they are merely inoperative for any purpose.

Judgment affirmed.  