assessment or the application for confirmation, and no errors in the proceeding to confirm, not affecting the power of the court to entertain and consider the petition therefor, shall be deemed a defense to the application. The circuit court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the cross-bill did not allege that notices were not mailed, posted and published as required by the statute. Poncar averred that he had no notice of the assessment, either actual or constructive, but the most liberal construction of the averment would simply be that he did not receive or see the notice. If the statute was complied with it did not affect the jurisdiction of the court that the notice was not received or seen by Poncar. (People v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 213 Ill. 367.) It cannot be gathered from the cross-bill whose name was given on the assessment roll as owner of the lot,-whether it was Poncar alone, or the owner or owners of the other part of the lot, or both. It was alleged that he paid the taxes the previous year, as shown by the collector's book; but that would not answer for an averment that his name did not appear on the assessment roll, or that a notice was not mailed to him or posted or published. If the cross-bill could have been considered as showing a want of jurisdiction in the circuit court, it would have shown that a successful defense could have been made to the application in the circuit court and that there was no reason for appealing to the court of equity. It did not show such want of jurisdiction nor set forth any equitable ground for relief against the judgment for confirmation. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the cross-bill. The original bill did not dispute the legality of the assessment but sought contribution from Poncar for the payment of as much as was equitably chargeable to his portion of the lot. That is one of the subjects of equitable jurisdiction. (Farwell v. Becker, 129 Ill. 261; 3 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. sec. 1221; 38 Cyc. 52; 46 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law,-2d ed.—354.) It is a general doctrine of equity that where different parties are equitably bound to discharge portions of a lien the court will enforce contribution according to the equities of the several owners. There is no question in this case of any necessity that one owner should pay the whole charge and then seek contribution from the other, since the park commissioners expressly consented that an equitable division of the charge upon the lot should be made by the court. The several proportions of the assessment fixed by the court and charged against the different portions of the lot appear to us to be equitable and to be sustained by the evidence. The decree is affirmed. Mr. JUSTICE FARMER, dissenting: Decree affirmed. The assessment of the lot as a whole was directly contrary to the plain command of the statute, and in my opinion was not a mere irregularity which was waived by not objecting to confirmation, but the assessment was void and the court was without jurisdiction to confirm it. (Howe v. People, 86 Ill. 288; Biggins' Estate v. People, 193 id. 601; Hamilton v. Fond du Lac, 25 Wis. 493; Langlois v. Cameron, 201 Ill. 301; Cooley on Taxation, 280, 734-736.) The duty of levying the assessment is conferred by statute upon certain officers specially designated and appointed for that purpose, and I do not think a court of equity has jurisdiction to assume the performance of said duties. Crane v. Janesville, 20 Wis. 305. INDEX. ACCEPTANCE.-See PLATS. ACCOUNTING. PAGE. other party need not be placed in statu quo when infant's ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. ..... there can be but one recovery for money illegally drawn 76 77 145 ... 202 office of common law writ of certiorari-what judgment 228 ... 228 injunction defendant is liable in damages if its acts pend- 231 power of court of equity, in Illinois, to reform a contract 268 a court of equity in a proper case may reform a contract 268 when contract should be set aside as unfairly obtained— 273 remedy by information is not a matter of absolute right— 341 ACTIONS AND DEFENSES.-Continued. a negative plea in equity is a legitimate mode of defense- right of grantors to enforce restrictive covenant does not PAGE. 364 364 401 ..... 401 right of a coal company which has rented surface of its 423 a cause of action for permanent injury to land does not 423 423 a title by prescription becoming complete after cause of 584 heirs cannot maintain bill to reform deeds unless the an- 584 when tenant in common cannot acquire color of title as 606 when delay of sixteen years in asserting title to lands is 606 ADMINISTRATION.-See EXECUTORS. ALLEYS.-See HIGHWAYS. AMENDMENTS. when allowance of motion to amend motion to quash is 85 method prescribed by statute in levying taxes must be fol- 624 delinquent road tax lists not sworn to by overseers cannot 625 |