Opinion, per DONAHUE, J. section within the limitations contained in Sections 3940 and 3941, General Code. These sections are rewritten into this amendment in the identical language contained in original code Sections 3940 and 3941, and were in force at the time the ordinance in question was initiated and submitted to a vote of the electors of the city of Circleville. These statutes have since been amended, but these amendments do not apply to this case. It is clear from the history of this legislation, and the several amendments of Sections 2835 and 2837, Revised Statutes, that Sections 3942 and 3943, General Code, as amended by Sections 4 and 5 of the act of May 15, 1911 (102 O. L., 262), have no application to the issuing of bonds under the provision of Section 3939, General Code, where the amount of the bonds proposed to be issued is within the limitations contained in Sections 3940 and 3941, General Code; otherwise these sections would have no purpose and no meaning and might just as well never have been written into the statute laws of this state. If it were proposed to issue bonds in excess of these limitations, then Sections 3942 and 3943, General Code, would apply, and the preliminary resolution required by Section 3943, General Code, would be essential to the validity of all subsequent proceedings. This preliminary resolution would be the first "measure required to be passed," within the meaning of that term as used in Section 4227-3, General Code, as amended 103 Ohio Laws, 211, and would be the only legislation or other Opinion, per DONAHUE, J. measure to which the act of April 17, 1913 (103 O. L., 211), would apply. If that resolution were initiated by petition and adopted by the electors of the municipality, it would then become the duty of the city council to adopt such further ordinances or other measures as the law requires to complete the legislation necessary to make and pay for the proposed public improve ment. This provision of Section 4227-3, General Code, is evidently intended to prevent the necessity and absurdity of submitting the same question a second time to the electors of a municipality. It is true that a serious question arises as to the vote required to adopt a resolution, initiated by petition, declaring it necessary to issue bonds in excess of the limitations named in Sections 3940 and 3941, General Code. Section 4227-1, General Code, provides that where an ordinance or other measure is initiated by petition it may be approved by a majority of the electors voting upon the same. Section 3947, General Code, provides that a resolution of this character requires for its adoption an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the electors voting upon the question of issuing the proposed bonds. The authorities are uniform that, where there is a special statutory provision relating to a particular matter, such special provision must be read as an exception to the general statutes that would otherwise control, and that in all such cases the special provision applies. That question, however, is not presented in this record. Opinion, per DONAHUE, J. There is no averment in the amended petition in this case that the proposed issue of bonds for the purposes named in the initiated ordinance will exceed the limitations named in Sections 3940 and 3941, General Code. Therefore but one ordinance is all that is required to complete the legislation necessary to authorize the issue of bonds within these limitations. That ordinance may be adopted by the city council by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the members elected or appointed thereto, or it may be initiated by petition and adopted by a majority of the electors voting upon the question. Nor is there any averment in this amended petition that the bonds proposed to be issued are in excess of the limitations named in Section 3948, General Code, as amended May 15, 1911 (102 O. L., 262); or that under the provisions of Section 56492 et seq., General Code, limiting the maximum of tax rates which may be levied in any one taxing district, a tax cannot be levied as required by Section 11 of Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, as amended September 3, 1912, to provide an amount sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds proposed to be issued and a sinking fund for their final redemption at maturity. Rabe v. Board of Education, 88 Ohio St., 403. These two limitations apply, however, to all issues of bonds, regardless of the statutes under which they are proposed to be issued, and there is no method of procedure by which bonds in excess of these limitations may be lawfully issued. Statement of the Case. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. NICHOLS, C. J., WANAMAKER, NEWMAN, JONES, MATTHIAS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. THE CLEVELAND & WESTERN COAL Co. v. O'BRIEN, TREASURER. Taxation-Money of Ohio corporation-Deposited in foreign bank. Money of a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio on deposit in a bank located outside of the state of Ohio is, under the provisions of Section 5328. General Code, subject to taxation in this state. (No. 15703-Decided March 19, 1918.) ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county Plaintiff in error brought an action in the common pleas court of Cuyahoga county to restrain defendant in error from enforcing the collection of certain taxes. It appears from the petition that plaintiff in error is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in the city of Cleveland, Ohio; that in its business of buying and selling coal it has acquired and operates a dock in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which dock is operated as a distinct department of its business and all deal Statement of the Case. ings connected therewith kept separate and distinct. from its other business; that all coal put upon said dock by plaintiff in error is shipped up to said dock as though it were a separate entity from plaintiff in error; that operating costs of the dock and all expenses connected with its operation are kept separate, regular books being kept to cover all purchases and sales in connection therewith, said books being kept in the Milwaukee office; that all remittances to plaintiff in error arising from the sale of dock coal are made to the Milwaukee office and are indorsed by the manager of that office and deposited to the credit of plaintiff in error in an account carried in the First National Bank in the city of Milwaukee; that said dock business has its own profit and loss account and in every way is operated as a distinct and separate business transacted by the plaintiff in the city of Milwaukee. It is averred in the petition that plaintiff in error made and filed its tax return with the proper authorities of Cuyahoga county, covering the property owned and held by it on the day preceding the second Monday in April, 1916, which, according to statute, it should list in Cuyahoga county, the amount due thereon being $723.39, which it has tendered to defendant in error, but which has been refused by him; that the statement accompanying the tax return so filed by plaintiff in error showed that it had on deposit in the First National Bank of Milwaukee, on said tax-listing day, the sum of $43,850.98; that the county auditor, without the consent and over the protest of plaintiff in error, and without any right or authority, has placed said |