Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/169

 FIRST NAT. BANK OF UTICA V. WATKB8. 157 �with state bank shares, it was thought expedient to place them on an equality also with the capital employed inprivate banking, and thus relieve them from the danger to whieh corporations are sometimes exposed by local prejudices. But whether this view is correct or not, within the cases referred to, the laws of this state for the taxation of general corpora- tions and the exemption of their shares do not furnish the rule for the taxation of moneyed corporations, or of capital invested in private banking, or of personal property generally ; and the complainant must fail upon this branch of its case. �As to the second ground upon which the motion rests, as the collector is a ministerial officer, who must obey the man- date in his hands for the collection of the tax, the complain- ant cannot succeed, unless the tax is void, because illegal, as distinguished from irregular. The assessment roll and war- rant annexed for the collection of the taxes constitute the mandate of the officer, and the legality of his proceedings under them may be determined by the principles which apply to the case of an officer acting under a judgment and execu- tion. �The rule in this state d in Erskine v. Hohnback, 14 Wall. 613: �" If an officer or tribunal possess iurisdiction over the subject-matter upon which iudgment is passed, with power to issue an order or process for the enforcement of auch judgment, and the order or process issued thereon to a ministerial offlcer is regular on its face, showing no departure from the law or def ect of jurisdiction over the person or property affected, then, and in such cases, the order or process will give full and entire pro- tection to the ministerial offlcer against any prosecution which the party aggrieved may institute against him, although serious errors may have been committed by the offlcer or tribunal in reacliing the conclusion or judgment upon which the order or process issued." �Tested by this rule, the collector in the present case is pr >- tected by his warrant in collecting the tax. �Doubtless the fair construction of the Revised Statutes and the charter of the city of Utica requires that when the assess- ment roll for a given ward is delivered by the board of super- visors to the treasurer of the city of Utica, the amount of the tax paid by each tax payer shall have been extended and shall appear upon the roll. But everything had been done ��� �