Nickerson v. Kimball. "Personal property .... shall be valued at its fair cash value," Chap. 120, § 3, Hurd's Rev. Stat., p. 857. "The stockholders in every bank located within this State, whether such bank has been organized under the banking laws of this State, or of the United States, shall be assessed and taxed on the value of their shares of stock therein, in the county, town, district, village or city where such bank is located, and not elsewhere, whether such stockholders reside in such place or not. .... Taxation of such shares shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon any other moneyed capital .... where such bank is located." In each of said banks there shall be a list of the names and residences of its stockholders, and of the number of shares held by each. This list shall be open to the inspection of the revenue officers, "and it shall be the duty of the assessor to ascertain and report to the county clerk a correct list of the names and residences of all stockholders in any such bank, with the number and assessed value of all such shares held by such stockholder." § 36. "The county clerk .... shall enter the valuation of such shares in the tax list in the names of the respective owners of the same, and shall compute and extend taxes thereon the same as against the valuation of other property in the same locality." § 37. This tax is declared to be a lien upon the respecive shares of stock. § 38. It is made the duty of the bank or its officers to retain the dividends belonging to the respective stockholders until the tax shall have been paid. Any officer violating this provision of the law shall thereby become liable for such tax. The collector may sell the shares of stock when the owner refuses to pay the tax. Chap. 120 §§ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, Rev. Stat., p. 864. There can be no question but that these provisions of the law are in harmony with the Constitution. The "valuation " is required, as is "uniformity," and all as provided by the Constitution. The law makes the same provision in valuation to every one who may own the stock of the various banks in the State. If the tax imposed by this law operates unequally, it must be because the law itself is not complied with. It was seen that the assessor must be a man, and so might fail in discharging his duty. Hence the county board, acting as a board of equalization, may review and correct what has not been done correctly. "On the application of any person considering Nickerson v. Kimball. himself aggrieved, or who shall complain that the property of another is assessed too low, they shall review the assessment and correct the same as shall appear to be just." That is to say, if any one thinks his property has been valued too high and so considers himself "aggrieved," he may complain, and if the board regard his complaint as well founded, then they will review and correct the assessment, by reducing the valuation; or it may be some one thinks that burdens are not equal, and so "complains that the property of another is assessed too low." It is then the duty of the board to review and correct the assessment as shall appear to be just. If the complaint is well founded, as in the former case, the assessment can be corrected only by increasing the "valuation." However, it is provided that "no complaint that another is assessed too low shall be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall be notified of such complaint, if a resident of the county." Chap. 120, § 97, sub-sec. 2, Rev. Stat., p. 873. One other provision of the statute has been referred to in considering these cases. That provision, it is claimed, modifies the other provisions referred to materially, modifies many decisions of the Supreme Court. It is provided (inter alia) that "no error or informality in the proceedings of any of the officers connected with the assessment, levying or collecting of the taxes, not affecting the substantial justice of the tax itself, shall vitiate or in any manner affect the tax or the assessment thereof." Chap. 120, § 191, Rev. Stat., p. 890. True it is, this provision is found in the middle of a section that is providing for the proper mode of rendering judgment on the delinquent tax lists; but yet there is no language or words used in any other part of the section that changes, or modifies, or limits the meaning of the provision enacted. The words would mean the same, neither more nor less, if they stood alone in a separate section, or in any other connection. The provisions under consideration, when brought together, then may be read in this way: "Any one may complain that another is assessed to low, but such complaint shall not be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall be notified of such complaint, if a resident of the county; and no error or informality in the proceedings of any of the officers connected with the assessment, levying or collecting of the taxes, not affecting the substantial justice of the tax itself, shall vitiate or in any manner affect the tax or the assessment thereof." Nickerson v. Kimball. Nickerson et al. aver that they are shareholders of the stock of the First National Bank of Chicago. Barton et al. are shareholders of the stock of the Fifth National Bank of Chicago. Coolbaugh et al. are like shareholders of the stock of the Union National Bank of Chicago. Blair et al. are shareholders of the stock of the Merchants' National Bank of Chicago. Fairbank et al. are shareholders of the stock of the Commercial National Bank of Chicago; and Sturges et al. are the shareholders of the stock of the Northwestern National Bank of Chicago. The respective complainants make substantially the same averments. The complainants are all residents of the county of Cook, and the respective banks are located in Chicago. In addition to other averments which are necessary to give jurisdiction, it is averred that the shares of stock of each bank were "assessed and taxed on the value of the shares; " that the assessor of the town of South Chicago, as such assessor, listed the shares of the capital stock of the respective banks for taxation, he giving the valuation thereof as fixed by himself; that this assessment so made by him was returned to the county clerk; that then it was the duty of the clerk to enter the valuation of the shares, as made by the assessor, in the tax lists, in the names of the respective owners, and compute and extend the tax therein on the valuation so made; that these things are required by the provisions of the statutes herein before quoted; "that the assessor, in making the assessment for the year 1876, listed all bank shares and like property at one-third of the value which, in his judgment, said shares were actually worth." To this point no question is raised, but that the law has been complied with. But complaint was made by persons stating that they considered themselves aggrieved, and complained that the personal property of the following named persons, firms and corporations have been assessed too low for the year 1876, to-wit: shareholders of the stock of the respective banks, and designating the name of the bank. This complaint was addressed to the board of commissioners of Cook county, and those complaining asked the board to review the assessments for 1876 of said persons, firms and corporations, and correct the same as shall appear to be just." This was the only complaint that was filed, and the only notice of this complaint was given to the presidents or cashiers of the banks. Nickerson v. Kimball. The board did review the assessments, and corrected them by increasing the valuation very considerably; but in no case did the valuation or assessment thus increased amount to more than one-third of what appears to be a fair cash market value of the respective shares of stock. It is admitted that the stock is personal property, and it is not claimed by any complainant that the shares, by either the assessor or board, were "valued at their fair cash value." The complainants aver that the county board had no jurisdiction of the matter, or, rather, of the persons of the complainants, until the complainants or their respective agents had notice of such complaint; and they claim that neither the bank nor any officer of the bank was agent of the shareholders. A number of authorities are referred to by the learned counsel to show that the question of notice is jurisdictional. It is perhaps by some of the counsel conceded that the county board had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and it is claimed that the said board could have jurisdiction of the persons residing in Cook county only when they have notice. This notice is not required as to any one residing beyond the limits of Cook county. If the complainants be correct, then the fact that notice to non-residents is not required must operate as a hardship. It is not protecting all alike. It must be borne in mind that the valuation or assessment made and returned by the assessor is made by procuring the necessary information from the bank. The officer calls at the bank and makes his list, and then the valuation is made and returned. Of this fact and of the additional fact that dividends must be retained by the bank until the tax is paid, every person must take notice. This assessment and this return, it may be said, is the matter that, in the first place, confers jurisdiction or sets in motion the officers and those having jurisdiction. It has been held in our own State, "that where the board of supervisors exercise the power to revise the assessment of an individual, he must have notice, and an opportunity to be heard, before it can be legally done.” Cleghorn v. Posthwaite, 43 Ill. 428; Darling v. Gunn, 50 id. 424; First National Bank of Shawneetown v. Cook et al., 77 id. 622. This last-named decision was made under the law as it existed March 7, 1873. The provision of the law that is supposed to modify the law as it then existed took effect July 1, 1873, and provides that no error or informality not affecting the substantial justice of the tax itself shall vitiate or affect the tax on the assessment thereof. Nickerson v. Kimball. In the case of Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 459, the court holds: "The tax, to the extent it was increased,.... having been levied on an unauthorized assessment, made by persons having no jurisdiction of the person to make the assessment, without notice to the appellant, its collection should have been enjoined." This case falls within the former decisions of the court, in which it is held that a court will not interfere to restrain the collection of a tax unless it is levied by persons having no authority. As the law then stood, it was incumbent on the court to find that error existed; but it was not necessary to find more than that error existed. That was all that was required. It was not necessary to pass upon the jurisdictional question. As the law now stands, this inquiry is necessary, since the court will not enjoin the collection of a tax for mere error or informality. It cannot be that the various officers must give notice to every one specially concerned before they can act in relation to the assessment of taxes. In the case of the National Bank of Shawneetown v. Cook, 77 Ill. 622, the assessment had been made and corrected by the State board of equalization, and then, without notice, the valuation was increased; and the court holds: "that it is a proposition upon which there can be no doubt that the board had no power to make any change in the assessment without notice to appellant." By this language the court is understood as holding no more than that it was simply error in the board to exercise the power without special notice to be affected thereby. That was the direction of the statute, and it is still the direction of the statute, and to disregard it is an error. In the case of Mix v. People, 72 Ill. 241, it was held that the levy must be made within the time prescribed by law, or it would be void. Was it necessary for the court to hold language so strong? Was it intended to decide any thing more than that, as the law then existed, it was such an error as vitiated the levy of the tax? The Supreme Court afterward said: "It is also urged that the local taxes were not levied and returned to the clerk in time; and in support of the position, the case of Mix v. The People, supra, is referred to as controlling this. That tax was levied under the law of 1872, whilst this is under the statute of 1873, which amends the prior law. See § 191, p. 890, Rev. Stat. 1874. That section declares that no error or informality in the proceedings of any of the officers connected with the assessment, levying or collecting of |