1895, p. 207] was made to apply to only two classes, the first and second. and was therefore unconititutional. Marsh v. Supervisors, 111 Cal. 370. Citing Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 620; Welsh v. Bramlett, 98 Cal. 219; Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238; Bloss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 493; Turner v. Siskiyou, 109 Cal. 332; Darcey v. Mayor of San José, 104 Cal. 624; Denman v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 96.

The sole purpose of the classification of counties is for the purpose of fixing compensation of officers. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 5; County of San Luis Obispo v. Graves, 84 Cal. 75.

The fact that there may be only one county in a certain "class" established by the legislature does not render the classification unconstitutional under section 5, article XI, of the constitution. If the law operates uniformly upon all counties within a given class, the number in that class does not become material. Summerland v. Bicknell, 111 Cal. 569.

Certain sections of Political Code [3704, 3894, 3895] relating to county assessors were superseded as to Butte county by special acts of 1873-4, 1875-6, and by the county government act they were repealed altogether. Lynch v. Butte County, 102 Cal. 448.

County warrants do not possess the qualities of negotiable paper. A void warrant is void in the hands of an assignee thereof for value. The assignee stands in the shoes of the original holder. Bank v. Bartlett, 78 Cal. 303.

Where the sheriff is made ex officio tax col

lector, the under sheriff may perform the duties of tax collector for his principal. [Pol. Code, Sec. 4114] and the sheriff is liable on his official bond for the delinquencies of his under sheriff. People v. Otto, 77 Cal. 47.

An order of a board of supervisors recited "that they have this day fixed the rate of county and district tax to be levied and collected upon each one hundred dollars of the assessed valuation, etc., as follows: State fund, .64; general county fund, .40; etc., *** total state, county and district tax, 1880-'81, $2.75. Held that the order was sufficient, and that the omission of the word "cents" from the various items of the levy did not invalidate it. Lake County v. Sulphur Bank Q. M. Co., 66 Cal. 23.

The abbreviation "Dolls." is equivalent to the word "dollars" in an assessment for taxes. Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 223.

Land purchased by a county and devoted to hospital use, is dedicated to a public use, and there can be no adverse possession thereof which can subject it to the statute of limitations. The fact that the county has a right to revoke or discontinue the use, devote it to another use, or sell it in a statutory and limited way, cannot affect the principle of dedication, or cause the statute of limitations to apply. The same is true as to public roads. County of Yolo v. Barney, 79 Cal. 377.

The term "assessment" is often popularly used as a synonym for taxation, but this is not its strict legal significance.

A charge imposed by law upon the assessed value of all property real and personal in a district is a tax and not an assessment, although the purpose be to make only a road improvement. An assessment is a charge upon property, in thecry at least, upon the principle of apportionment according to the relation between burden and benefit. Holley v. County of Orange, 106 Cal. 426.

The power to refund taxes erroneously or illegally collected, conferred upon the board of supervisors by section 3804, Political Code, is judicial in its nature, and not ministerial; and a writ of mandate will not lie against the board to compel the exercise of such power in a particular way. Younger v. Board of Supervisors, 68 Cal. 242.

The delinquent tax list was properly a part of "county printing," and would properly be included in a contract by the board of supervisors for doing the county printing although it was not specifically enumerated in the contract. It could properly be printed without any "order" of the board. The Times Pub. Co. v. Alameda Co., 64 Cal. 469.

The power to create offices not created by the constitution is a legislative power which cannot be delegated, though the legislature may vest the appointment of officers in such individual, or officer, or board, as it may think proper; but it can neither create an office by special act, nor can it by special act vest the power to appoint an officer in any

board whatever. Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 413.

As to when a claim or liability "accrues" against a county is discussed in McGowan v. Ford, 107 Cal. 184.

A contract by the board of Supervisors with the county clerk, who is under regular salary as such, to pay him a commission for collecting a claim due the county from the state, is void as an attempt to increase the pay of a public officer during his official term, and is void as against public policy. Power v. May, 114 Cal. 208.

A board of supervisors has authority to erect a county jail, without a law authorizing the levy of a special tax therefor. Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488.

A contract by which the board of supervisors employ the district attorney of the county for a special compensation to attend to the interests of the county in a suit which is to be tried in another county after the expiration of his term of office, does not increase his salary as district attorney; and if the contract is made in good faith, it is not void. Jones v. Morgan, 67 Cal. 308.

A contract for county printing without ten days' public notice that such contract will be let to the lowest bidder, as required by section 4047 of Political Code, is void. Maxwell v. Board of Supervisors, 53 Cal. 398.

Except where the board of supervisors have exceeded their power, the auditor cannot assume to set up his judgment in opposition

to theirs, in respect to the issuance of a warrant on an account against the county. Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488.

The board of supervisors of a county is a special tribunal with mixed powers-administrative, legislative and judicial. Its judgments or orders cannot be attacked collaterally any more than the judgments of courts of record. Waugh v. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 12; Murray v. Mariposa County, 23 Cal. 195.

A claim for damages arising from defective sewers is not required to be presented to the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco before bringing suit thereon. Lehn v. San Francisco, 66 Cal. 77.

Supervisors in counties of the thirty-third class are only entitled to one mileage for each session of the board. While engaged in the performance of the duty of attending upon regular and special sessions, the official residence of each supervisor is at the county-seat. Howes v. Abbott, 78 Cal. 270.

"A day" is the time between any midnight and the midnight following, [Pol. Code, Sec. 3529], and such must be the meaning when employed in a municipal prohibitory ordinance. City of Eureka v. Diaz, 89 Cal. 468.

Supervisors may rescind a contract which they had been fraudulently induced to make, but not on the ground that members of the board had been slandered by the other contracting party. Hall v. County of Los Angeles, 74 Cal. 506.

A supervisor is made personally liable for a