34 FEDERAL mzronrns.
‘ I. R. Campbell, as sheriff of Lane county, and others, from collect-
ing certain taxes theretofore levied by said counties and others, re-
spectively, on certain mortgages of real property held and owned by
the plaintiff therein, as security for money loaned to the parties ex-
ecuting the same, under the act of the legislative assembly approved
- October 26, 1882, and commonly called the "mortgage tax law," on
the ground that the same was void and of no effect for reasons therein
stated. On a demurrer to the bill the court held that the act was
unconstitutional and void, and overruled the demurrer; and, on the
failure of the defendants to answer the bill within the timeiallowed
therefor, the court gave a final decree, perpetually enjoining the
plaintiffs herein and their co-defendants from collecting, or attempt-
ing to collect, said taxes, amounting in the case of Benton county to
$873.20, and in the case of Lane county to $884.75. r
The bill alleges that the decree is manifestly erroneous in this:
The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the bill, and in enjoin~
ing the defendants therein, and in requiring them to pay the plain-
tiff’s costs and disbursements.
The mortgage tax law provided that mortgages on land in no more
than one county should be assessed and taxed as land. The court
held the act unconstitutional for want of uniformity, and because
V the same is special; or, as stated in the syllabus of the case, (10
Sawy. 52; 19 Fed. Rep. 359:)
"An act which provides for the taxation of mortgages on land in no more
than one county`; there being mortgages on land in more than one county,
is void for want of the uniformity required by section 1 of article 9 of the
constitution of the state; and also because it is contrary to section 23 of article
4 of said constitution, which forbids special legislation on that subject. "
In October, 1884, the supreme court of the state in Crawford v.
Linn Co., 11 Or. 482, S. C. 5 Pac. Rep. 738, decided that the mort-
gage tax law was not unconstitutional for want of uniformity, because
a two-county mortgage, though exempt from its operation, was taxed
as a solvent debt, under the old law, inthe county where the creditor
resided; and that said law, although operating only in particular
cases, was not a special one, because under section 27 of article 4 of
· the constitution, which declares: "Every statute shall be considered
a public law, unless otherwise declared in the statute itself,"—it is a
public one, and therefore a general one.
‘ The defendant demurs to the bill for the non-joinder of the co-de-
fendants of the plaintiffs herein, in the original suit, and that there
is no error in the record cognizable or relievable in this suit.
The objection that all the defendants in the original suit ought to A
have been made parties plaintiff in this is not well taken. ‘ It is ques-
tionable whether the plaintiff had a right to join the several parties
as defendants in the original bill as it did. At most, they were only
proper parties, but not necessary ones. The interest of these several
counties and school—districts was separate and distinct, and the only