. Tomxms ii:. `urrnit nocx“&*1¤·r. s. a!. ,11
andof "a contract., But‘the contract is in no sense unilateral. The
company was not bound to borrow the state bonds; theloan was tend-
ered on ce1·tain terms and conditions, and when itapplied for and
accepted the bonds, it voluntarily assented to be bound by the pro-
visions of the acts, which at once constituted a contract between the
company and the` state. By the terms of this contract, if the com-
pany did not pay the interest on the state bonds as stipulated, it
authorized the treasurer of state, "by writ of sequestration, to seize
and take possession of the income and revenues of said company un- `
til“the amount of said default be fully paid up and satisned, with
costs of sequestration, after which said treasurer shall return the fur-
ther revenues of said company to its officers." · Such seizure and se-
questration might be repeated from time to time as often as the com·
pany made default. The "claims and liens on the part of the state"
were not to be discharged until "the bonds issued to such company,
and the·interest thereon," had been fully paid. Section 7. There is
nothing mysterious or doubtfulin the meaning of "sequestration”
and "writ of sequestration," as usedin the acts. The word is here
used in its usual sense, and means "to seize or take possession of
the property belonging to another, and hold it till the profits have
paid the demand for which it was taken." Worcest,
This is precisely what the company agreed'the state might do with
its property if it failed at any time to furnish the state with the
funds to pay the interest andprincipal of the state bonds accord-
V ing to the terms of its contract. Where a creditor acquires the right
by contract to seize and sell the property or his"debtor, or sequester
the incomes and revenues of the same, topayjthe latter’s debt, such
right, in equity, necessarily imports and creates a lien. · J ones, Mortg.
§ 162. · ·
A creditor at large possesses no such right; and cannot seize and
A sell the property of his debtor or sequester its income. · l
The terms "tai" and "taxation*’ are not 'used in the actin the sense
of a tax that istp be assessed and levied ·for the support of the state
or any of its subdivisions; ” A tax, in the legal signihcationof the V
term, has to be levied on all property "by a uniform rule," not only
as to the ratebut in the mode ot itstassessmentg, Article 10, § 2,
Const.; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 295. V
Clearly, thisword as used in the act has no preference to a tax in
its strict legal signiflcation. The sense in which a word is used in
any given case is to be· determined by the context. r - 4 ~