
    INJUNCTION — OFFICE AND OFFICERS.
    [Franklin (2nd) Circuit Court,
    November 15, 1905.]
    Wilson, Sullivan and Dustin, JJ.
    State ex rel. Seymour, Pros. Atty. v. Gilfillan et al.
    1. Cbeation op. Tax Inquisitor.
    Employment of a tax inquisitor, for Franklin county, is authorized only by Rev. Stat. 1343a and 1343b (Lan. 2744/2745).
    2. Constitutionality op Act Providing for Tax Inquisitor.
    The above provisions are unconstitutional as contravening Art. 2, Sec. 26 of the constitution of the state of Ohio.
    3. Right of Tax Inquisitor to Compensation.
    Compensation earned by tax inquisitor by virtue of said act, while similar acts were held constitutional by the Supreme. Court, may be ■ recovered from the taxes placed on the duplicate by means of his services.
    [For other cases in point, see 7 Cyc. Dig.. “Taxation,” §§ 598, 890-892. — Ed.]
    4. When Compensation not Allowed.
    But where the evidence collected by him is of a public nature he cannot collect his compensation for taxes placed on the duplicate by reason thereof, and the county treasurer will be.enjoined from paying such claims from taxes.
    A. T. Seymour, E. N. Huggins, F. C. Rector and M. E. Thrailkill, for plaintiff.
    J. T. Holmes, J. H. Dyer and H. A. Williams, for defendants’.
   SULLIVAN, J.

1. Franklin county, containing a city of the first grade of the second class, the employment of a tax inquisitor for said county is authorized only by Rev. Stat. 1343a and 1343b (Lan-. 2744, 2745), passed April 23, 1885 (82 O. L. 152).

2. Said act is unconstitutional as in contravention of Art. 2, Sec. 26 of the constitution of the state of Ohio.

3. The rights acquired and moneys earned for services, under and by virtue of contracts entered into, according to the provisions of said act, while similar acts were held by the highest court of the state to be constitutional, are valid and subsisting rights, and may be enforced.

4. The inquisitor is entitled to compensation out of the taxes placed on the duplicate by means of his services under said act upon real estate as well as personal property. In neither case he is entitled to compensation upon any penalties added by the county auditor.

5. The inquisitor in this case is not entitled under said act to compensation for placing upon the duplicate by the county auditor the securities belonging - to foreign insurance companies, as the facts and evidence claimed to have been furnished by him were not such disclosures as to entitle him to compensation therefor, because the same'were of a public nature and known or should have been known to the county auditor.

6. It is not necessary to the validity of contracts with the inquisitor that they should be entered upon the records of the county commissioners.

7. The county auditor will therefore be enjoined' from issuing his warrant upon the county treasury to the defendant, Gilfillan, upon any claim made by said Gilfillan, for any service claimed by him as inquisitor, under the contract of December 26, 1902, for any claim made by him for compensation as inquisitor for placing upon the duplicate for taxation by the county auditor the securities belonging to insurance companies of other countries and states, doing business in this state, and for any claim made by said Gilfillan as inquisitor as compensation upon penalties added to any taxes by said auditor, and the county treasurer will be enjoined from paying to said Gilfillan any money out of the county treasury, upon any of the foregoing claims, and the said Gilfillan will be enjoined from demanding or receiving the warrant of the county auditor upon the county treasury and from demanding or receiving from the county treasurer any money for and upon either of the above claims. Costs to be taxed to defendants.

Wilson and Dustin, JJ., concur.  