lands, and Hough was taken with him along the whole line, and talked about getting the timber out over the tram. The record also discloses the statement made by Hough to many witnesses during a period of years, calling the Bynum lands firm property, and stating that Bennett had an interest therein.

The evidence appears to us to be conclusive that these Bynum lands were purchased as partnership lands. It is claimed that the Du Bose and Anderson lands, after the quitclaim of 1900 by Bennett to Hough, ceased to be partnership property. The consideration for such deed was "one dollar and other considerations," and the testimony of the notary is that Hough's explanation was that he "wanted the deed made so that he could expedite the sale; that he would not be troubled to get another conveyance; that they would arrange it among themselves; they would settle the matter among themselves afterwards." The sale afterwards made included all of the lands in Mississippi. We are satisfied that the quitclaim was given to Hough by Bennett for the purpose stated by Hough at the time. The record does not indicate that there was ever any settlement at any time made between the copartners of the partnership affairs, or a division or disposition of its real estate. The clear intention of the

parties at the times of the purchases of these properties was that these lands were to be held and used for partnership purposes. That the Du Bose and Anderson lands were so purchased with partnership funds is not disputed. The $10,000 of the purchase price paid for the Bynum lands, by the manner in which it was paid into the firm and was afterwards paid to the seller by the firm, thereby became and was, for the purposes of the transaction, funds of the copartnership. The balance of $525 was procured as firm funds beyond dispute.

These conclusions have been arrived at without any consideration of the testimony of complainant, except as to such transactions on his part for the copartnership in Mississippi, of which his partner could have no equal

knowledge, and of which he could have known only by hearsay. The lapse of time and delay on the part of complainant before asking for an accounting have been considered. Under the circumstances of the case, we do not think that these facts are sufficient to work as an estoppel against him of the relief sought. We find that he was owner of a one-half interest in all the lands herein mentioned, and is entitled to an accounting with defendants for his interest in the proceeds arising from the sale thereof, and also of all the partnership affairs of said firm of Hough & Bennett.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs. MOORE, C. J., and GRANT, MONTGOMERY, and HOOKER, JJ., concurred.

PERRIZO v. TOWNSHIP OF STEPHENSON.

HIGHWAYS AND STREETS-HIGHWAY TAXES-LABOR AND MONEY TAX-ROAD DISTRICTS-INCORPORATED VILLAGES.

Since the amendment of 1887 (Act No. 156) of the highway law (subchap. 2, chap. 101, 2 Comp. Laws) the labor tax cannot be assessed upon property situated in incorporated villages and therefore not in any road district, but the money tax assessed to supply any insufficiency in the amount raised by labor tax must be assessed upon all the property of the township, including the villages therein, in like manner as was done before the amendment referred to was passed.

Case made from Menominee; Stone, J. Submitted June 22, 1905. (Docket No. 51.) Decided July 25, 1905.

Assumpsit by Pollet Perrizo, Edward Perrizo, and Paul

Perrizo, Jr., copartners as Perrizo & Sons, against the township of Stephenson for taxes paid under protest. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs assign error. Affirmed.

F. J. Trudell, for appellants.

N. C. Spencer (R. C. Flannigan, of counsel), for appellee.

MCALVAY, J. Plaintiffs brought suit to recover certain highway taxes paid under protest. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant.

The facts in the case were stipulated as follows:

"1. That the highway taxes of the defendant township are not assessed on a money basis, as provided in subchapter 4 of chapter 101 of the Compiled Laws of 1897, but are assessed on a labor basis, as provided in subchapter 2 of said chapter 101.

"2. That the electors of said township, at the annual meeting of said township in the year 1904, neglected to vote a money tax, as provided by the second subdivision of section 4074 of said Compiled Laws, and that the township board of said township, at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of September, 1904, ordered to be levied a sum, within the limit provided in said second subdivision, for the improvement of the roads of said township; and the township clerk of said township certified such action of the township board to the board of supervisors of the county of Menominee, and said board of supervisors, at their annual session in October, 1904, directed such sum to be spread upon the assessment roll of said township.

"3. That the supervisor of said township, in said year of 1904, assessed the sum so ordered to be levied by said township board upon all the estate, real and personal, of every inhabitant of said township, including every inhabitant within the incorporated villages of Stephenson and Daggett, and upon each tract or parcel of land therein belonging to nonresident owners; and that in making said assessment said supervisor did not apportion said sum, so ordered to be levied, among the different road districts of said township, but assessed the same against all the prop

erty within said township and villages, without reference to said road districts.

"4. That the commissioner of highways of said township, prior to the year 1904, divided said township into 10 road districts.

"5. That the villages of Stephenson and Daggett are incorporated under the general law for the incorporation of villages, being Act No. 3, Pub. Acts 1895, and are located within the limits of said township.

"6. That the property of the plaintiffs, at the time of the levying and assessment of said highway tax for the year 1904, was located within the corporate limits of said village of Daggett.

7. That of said highway tax the sum of $89.15 was assessed against the real and personal property of the plaintiffs.

"8. That on the 6th day of January, 1905, the plaintiffs paid highway tax to the township treasurer of said township under protest, said protest being in writing and signed by the plaintiffs, and the grounds specified therein were based upon the facts as herein stipulated; and the treasurer, at the time of the making of such payment by the plaintiffs, made a minute of the fact of such protest on the tax roll of said township, and in the receipt given by him to said plaintiffs.

"9 That within 30 days after making such payment under protest, to wit, on the 9th day of January, 1905, the plaintiffs sued said township for the amount so paid by them."

Upon the payment of said highway tax, plaintiffs protested in writing upon the following grounds:

"1. Because such tax is levied against all of the property - of said township indiscriminately, instead of being levied against the property of each road district of said township.

"2. Because the law provides that in levying such tax the same shall be levied against the property of each road district, and that incorporated villages shall be excluded in making the assessment and levying of such tax."

The only evidence introduced in the case was the foregoing stipulation of facts and written protest. These constitute the findings of fact by the court in the case, from which findings of fact the conclusion of law of the court was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and a

judgment of no cause of action was rendered. The only question in the case is whether the court erred in construing the statute under which the highway tax in question was assessed and levied.

The highway taxes of defendant township were assessed on a labor basis, as provided in subchapter 2 of chapter 101 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. Section 1 of said subchapter 2 (section 4072, 2 Comp. Laws) reads as follows:

"The highways in this State shall be opened, improved, and maintained by the labor of the inhabitants residing in and by assessments upon the property situated within the several townships, and for the more convenient expenditure of such labor and for making such assessments the commissioner of highways in each township shall divide his township, excluding incorporated villages, into so many road districts as he may judge convenient, and may vacate, alter, divide or consolidate such districts, his action in all such cases to be entered of record in the township clerk's office, but no such division shall be made within five days next preceding the annual township meeting."

Section 2 (section 4073, 2 Comp. Laws) requires the commissioner of highways to render his report or statement in writing to the annual township meeting, which shall set forth among other things required as follows:

"Fourth. An estimate of the amount of highway labor which in his judgment should be assessed upon the taxable property of the township for the next ensuing year.

* * *

"Fifth. The improvements necessary to be made in the highways and bridges during the year, and the amount. of money tax that should be levied for that purpose beyond what such estimated highway labor will accomplish, not exceeding fifty cents upon each one hundred dollars of valuation, according to the assessment roll for the last preceding year, or in townships whose aggregate valuation is less than fifty thousand dollars, a gross sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars."

Section 3 (section 4074, 2 Comp. Laws) provides that this statement shall be presented to the next annual township meeting, and such meeting