plaintiff, at the time required by law, paid into the county treasury of the said county the sum of 10 mills on its assessed valuation in said school-district No. 85 for a building fund, and also the sum of a mill on its assessed valuation in school-district No. 24 in said county for a library fund, the same being all the taxes legally levied upon its said property for said purpose, but it refused to, and still doth refuse to, pay the said excessive levy of 2 andmills in school-district No. 85 for said building fund, and 2 and mills in said school-district No. 24 for a library fund, and said levy of 2 mills upon its property in said Jefferson county for a poor fund, for the reason that the same is illegal, and not authorized by law; that the said illegal levies amounted, upon the assessed valuation of plaintiff's property as aforesaid in school-district No. 85 as aforesaid, to the sum of $58.40, in school-district No. 24 as aforesaid, $60.35, and upon its assessed valuation in said county as aforesaid the sum of $464.00, making a total of $582.75; that in all previous years there was levied by the board of county commissioners of the said county, for the current expenses of any one of said years, a tax of one per cent. or more on the dollar of the valuation of the taxable property in said county. "The plaintiff further says that the said levy of 2 mills upon all the taxable property in the said county for the said year, in addition to the levy of 10 mills for the current expenses of the said county, is illegal and void; that such excessive levy of 2 mills over and above the 10 mills on the dollar of the valuation of the taxable property of the said county was never submitted to or authorized by a direct vote of the electors of the said county; that no levy of a tax for the said year 1882, for the current expenses of the said year, in excess of 10 mills on the dollar of said valuation of the taxable property in said county, was ever submitted to or authorized by a direct vote of the electors of such county; that Levi Wilhelm, as treasurer of said Jefferson county, Kansas, on or about the thirteenth day of January, 1883, issued his warrant to George Davis, as sheriff of said county, for the collection of said illegal taxes, together with the penalty prescribed by law, amounting to $611.29, and said sheriff now threatens to levy upon and sell the property of this plaintiff to satisfy the same, and will do so unless restrained by this honorable court.

"Plaintiff further says it had no adequate remedy at law. Therefore, plaintiff prays that the said defendants, and each of them, may be restrained from collecting or attempting to collect, selling or attempting to sell, the property of this plaintiff, and from levying the said warrant thereon, and for such other and further relief as may be proper."

The defendants demurred to the amended petition of plaintiff, which demurrer was sustained by the court, and the temporary injunction. dissolved. Plaintiff excepted and brings the case here.

A. A. Hurd, W. C. Campbell, and Robert Dunlap, for plaintiff in

error.

W. F. Gilluly, for defendant in error.

HORTON, C. J. It is urged by the defendants that there is a defect of parties defendant in the petition as to the school-district taxes, and therefore that this court cannot pass upon the legality of those taxes. This view is correct. The parties defendant are under no legal obligation to defend the school-districts. As the districts are directly interested in the collection of those taxes, the officers thereof should have been made parties defendant. State v. Anderson, 5 Kan. 90; Carpenter v. Hindman, 32 Kan. 601; S. C. 5 PAC. REP. 165; Gilmore v. Fox, 10 Kan. 509-512; Hays v. Hill, 17 Kan. 360. It ap

pears from the petition that the assessed valuation of all the taxable property in the county of Jefferson for the year 1882 was $3,217,000.31. The levy for the "poor fund" of two mills was in addition to the ten mills levied for current expenses. As the taxable property of Jefferson county for 1882, was less than $5,000,000, the question is presented whether the tax for the "poor fund" was one of the current expenses of the county, and should, therefore, have been included within the 10-mills limitation. Section 35, c. 79, Comp. Laws 1879, gives the board of county commissioners authority to annually levy a tax for the support of the poor. We have biblical authority that "ye have the poor always with you," and experience shows that the expense for the support of the poor in the counties of the state is an expense to be incurred every year; in other words, an expense of the current year. Therefore, in our opinion, the "poor fund" is simply one of the items which the county board takes into consideration in levying a tax for county expenses, or for current expenses. Commissioners Osborne Co. v. Blake, 25 Kan. 356.

The statute permitting the county commissioners to levy and assess a tax for the support of the poor of their respective counties was adopted in 1862. At that time there was no limitation to the power of taxing for such purposes. In 1868 the legislature passed an act which limited the levy for the current expenses of any one year to 1 per cent. on the dollar, where the taxable property of a county is less than $5,000,000. Section 181, c. 25, Gen. St. 1868; section 220, c. 25, Comp. Laws 1879; Bartlett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 32 Kan. 134; S. C. 4 PAC. REP. 178. The levy of two mills upon all the taxable property of Jefferson county for the "poor fund" is therefore illegal, because in excess of the levy of 10 mills for county or current expenses, and not having been authorized by a direct vote of the people therefor. Bartlett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra. It is said, however, that as the taxes levied by virtue of said section 35 cannot be applied to any other object than that mentioned therein, that this tends to show that the legislature did not place any limitation upon the power of taxing for the "poor fund." This does not necessarily follow. The statute provides that when a judgment shall be rendered against the board of county commissioners of any county, or against any county officer where the same shall be paid by the county, it shall be levied and collected by a tax, and when so collected shall be paid by the county treasurer to the person to whom the same shall be adjudged. Taxes levied under this authority are held to be county expenses or current expenses. Commissioners Osborne Co. v. Blake, supra. The whole course of the later legislation in the state has been to restrict and fix the limits of the taxing power, and since the adoption of said section 181, c. 25, Gen. St. 1868, we do not think that the legislature intended that the power of the board of commissioners to levy a tax for the support of the poor should be unlimited.

The demurrer to the complaints regarding the alleged excessive levy by the school-district will be sustained, but the demurrer to the levy of two mills for the "poor fund" will be overruled. The case will be remanded, with direction to the court below to dispose of the same in accordance with the views herein expressed.

(All the justices concurring.)

(33 Kan. 211)

KANSAS CITY, T. & W. R. Co. v. ALBRIGHT, Treasurer, etc., and others.

Filed March 7, 1885.

1. COUNTIES-SUPPORT OF POOR-COMP. LAWS KAN. 1879, Сн. 79, §§ 4, 35. Sections 4, 35, c. 79, Comp. Laws 1879, are to be construed as having opera. tion without conflicting with each other.

2. SAME POWER OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ASSESS TAX.

Under section 35, c. 79, Comp. Laws 1879, the board of county commissioners in the several counties of this state have authority to levy and assess a tax for the support of the poor of their respective counties, in an amount not in excess of $500, without a previous vote of the people at a general election authorizing the levy.

3. SAME LIMITATION ON POWER-COMP. LAWS KAN. 1879, Cп. 25, § 220.

The limitation against the unlimited power of the board of county commis. sioners in the several counties of this state, in levying and assessing a tax for the support of the poor of their respective counties, is found in section 181, c. 25, Gen. St. 1868, (section 220, c. 25, Comp. Laws 1879.)

Error from Wyandotte county.

A. A. IIurd and Robert Dunlap, for plaintiff in error.

H. L. Alden, for defendants in error.

HORTON, C. J. At the time prescribed by law for the levying of taxes for 1883, the board of county commissioners of Wyandotte county levied and assessed a tax of one mill on the dollar upon the taxable property of said county, from which the county revenue is directed to be raised, for the support of the poor of said county. The tax of one-eighth of a mill on the dollar upon the taxable property of said county was sufficient to raise the sum of $500, therefore the tax of oue mill on the dollar would raise an amount largely in excess of that sum. The plaintiff paid the one-eighth of a mill on the dollar of its taxable property, but refused to pay the remainder,-seven-eighthe of a mill on the dollar,-amounting upon its taxable property in ques tion to $141.51. It is claimed by the plaintiff that as the alleged excessive levy of seven-eighths of a mill on the dollar was never authorized by any vote of the people at any general election, that such excessive levy was illegal, and its collection should have been enjoined.

The question, therefore, is whether the commissioners of a county have authority to levy a tax to raise an amount in excess of $500 for the support of the poor, without a previous vote of the people, at a general election, authorizing a greater levy. The sections of the statute to which we are referred are as follows:

"Sec. 4. Every county shall relieve and support all poor and indigent persons, lawfully settled therein, whenever they shall stand in need thereof; and the board of county commissioners may raise money for the support and employment of the poor in the same way and manner as in the twenty-ninth section of this act is provided."

"Sec. 29. To raise the sum necessary for the purchase of land, and the erection and furnishing of the buildings for such asylums, the board of county commissioners in the several counties shall have power to assess a tax upon property liable to taxation for raising a county revenue not exceeding tive hundred dollars, unless the amount of taxes to be assessed shall be submitted to a vote of the people at some general election, and a majority of all the votes cast at a poll opened for that purpose shall be in favor of such assess

ment."

"Sec. 35. The board of county commissioners in the several counties in this state may, if they deem it expedient, annually, at their session at which the county tax is ordered to be levied and assessed, levy and assess a tax for the support of the poor of their respective counties on objects from which the county revenue is or may be directed to be raised. The tax hereby authorized to be laid shall be collected by the same officers whose duty it may be to collect the state and county revenue, who shall pay the same into the county treasury."

On the part of the plaintiff it is contended "that section 4 gives the county board the authority to raise money for the support and employment of the poor, and prescribes that the way and manner in which it shall be done is set out in section 29, and that said section 29, as referred to in section 4, carries with it the limitation upon the power of the county commissioners to levy a tax for that purpose; that section 35 makes it discretionary with the board what tax they shall levy, if they do not transcend the previous limitation put upon them; that it is not obligatory upon the board to levy a tax sufficient to raise five hundred dollars; or even, if authorized by a previous vote to raise a larger sum, is it obligatory upon them by said section to levy a tax to raise such larger sum."

On the part of the defendants it is claimed "that section 4 is not antagonistic or contradictory to section 35; that both sections have operation to act without conflicting with each other; that the provision in said section 4 authorizing the board of county commissioners to raise money for the support and employment of the poor in the same way and manner as in the twenty-ninth section of this act is provided,' gives the board power to adopt some plan or scheme to support by employment the poor, and to levy taxes therefor; but the sum to be levied for such purpose is limited to $500, unless a greater sum is authorized by a vote of the people at a general election." We are inclined to the opinion that the latter view is the correct one to be adopted in the construction of these sections of the statute. As a rule, courts construe sections of the same statute so as to give every portion of the statute some force and effect. Potter's Dwar. St. & Const. pp. 144, 145; Points v. Jacobia, 12 Kan. 54; Bridge Co. v. Bailroad Co. 12 Kan. 413.

Thus construing the sections of the statute, sections 4 and 35 har

monize with each other. In some counties of the state, poor farms and county asylums are in operation. To give employment to the poor in such counties, it is often necessary for the board to purchase farming implements, horses, and other personal property. Likewise, for the same purpose, they might desire to purchase machinery, etc. Under section 4 they would have authority so to do, if the purchase of such articles did not exceed $500. If exceeding $500, a previous vote of the people at a general election authorizing a greater levy would be necessary. Section 35 has no concern regarding the employment of the poor, and simply provides for the raising of money for the support of the poor whenever the board of county commissioners find it expedient so to do. Counsel for plaintiff contend that this construction destroys the limitation to a dangerous delegated power. Not so. The limitation against the excess of arbitrary and unlimited power by the county commissioners, in levying taxes for the support of the poor of their respective counties, is found in section 220, c. 25, Comp. Laws 1879. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wilhelm, ante, 273; Railroad Co. v. Woodcock, 18 Kan. 20; Commissioners Osborne Co. v. Blake, 25 Kan. 358; Bartlett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 32 Kan. 134; S. C. 4 PAC. REP. 178.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. (All the justices concurring.)

(33 Kan. 229)

SOUTH SIDE TOWN MINING & MANUF'G Co. v. RHODES and Wife.

Filed March 7, 1885.

CORPORATION-ORAL CONTRACT OF AGENT TO SELL LAND-IMPROVEMENTS.

Where a mining and manufacturing company is the owner of a large number of town lois which it is engaged in selling, and its secretary and general manager make a verbal contract to sell a lot to a purchaser, and such purchaser pays the company therefor by his own labor and is put in possession of the lot by said officers, and while so in possession makes valuable improvements thereon, with the knowledge and consent of all the members of the company, such purchaser thereby acquires the equitable title to the lot.

Error from Cherokee county.

Action brought by the South Side Town Mining & Manufacturing Company against John H. Rhodes and his wife, on September 1, 1882, to recover the possession of mining lot No. 25, upon the N. E. of the S. E. of section 14, in township 34 S., of range 25 E. of the sixth principal meridian, formerly lots Nos. 1 and 2, in block No. 19, of Ford's addition to the city of Galena, Cherokee county, in this state. Trial had at the April term of the court for 1883, before the court, with a jury. The jury returned the following special findings:

(1) Did the plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this action, have the legal title to the property and premises described in its petition in this action? Answer. Yes. (2) Were said defendants, John H. Rhodes and Mrs. John H. Rhodes, in possession of said premises at the commencement of this action, or any part thereof? If yea, what part? A. Yes; in full possession