Opinion of the Court. one would take it. We see no ground for setting aside the sale because of inadequacy of price. The bill in the case was filed a few days after Smith had sold to Page. The period of depression had passed. The price had gone up again to nearly what Mrs. Derby had paid. But, the fact of depression in value is no ground in itself for not upholding a sale under the trust deed, nor is a subsequent rise in value a ground for setting aside the sale. Those who speculate in real estate on credit take the risk of depression in value at the time the credit expires, and those who buy for cash in time of depression are entitled to the benefit of a subsequent rise in value. The principal question discussed at the bar was the validity of the sale in the absence of Fuller. Latta, the other trustee, was present. No objection at the time of the sale to the absence of Fuller was made on behalf of the plaintiff, although she actually knew of the time and place of sale, and in consequence sent Shailer to Washington, and he attended the sale. The question of the necessity of the presence of a sole trustee at a sale under a deed of trust like the present was before the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in 1838, in Connolly v. Belt, 5 Cranch C. C. 405, on a bill filed by the grantor in the deed of trust to set aside a sale under it. It was contended that the sale was void because the sole trustee was not present, though he was represented at it by an agent. The objection was not made at the sale, but was raised by a bill filed by Belt, the debtor, against the creditor, and Semmes, the trustee, and the purchaser. The court was held by Chief Judge Cranch and Assistant Judge Morsell. The case of Heyer v. Deaves, 2 Johns. Ch. 154, was cited to it as holding that, under a statute of New York, which required all sales of mortgaged premises, under a decree, to be made by a master, a sale was invalid which was made by a competent agent of the master, in his absence. Chief Judge Cranch says, in delivering the opinion of the court: "Neither that statute nor that case is applicable to the present case, which is a sale under a common deed of trust. The time, place, terms and conditions were such as were deemed by the trustee most for the interest of all the parties concerned in the said sale, as ap Opinion of the Court. pears by the answer of the trustee; and a sale made by an agent of the trustee, according to the terms and conditions, and at the time and place prescribed, is a sale by the trustee, there being no law requiring him to be personally present at the auction. No objection having been made by Mr. Belt, or his friends, on account of the absence of Mr. Semmes, the trustee, who was represented by Mr. C. Cox, as his agent, at the sale, and their suffering the sale to go on, is, I think, a waiver of the objection, if it would have been otherwise valid. But the objection, in itself, is of no avail" We are not advised of any decision since that one, in the District of Columbia, holding to the contrary, until the one now before us. It was made nearly 50 years ago, and has probably been followed in some cases as a rule of property, which it is; and the fact that, in view of it, no statute has been passed by Congress requiring the personal presence of a sole trustee, or of both trustees, at a sale under a deed of trust, is persuasive to show that the absence of a sole trustee, or of one of two trustees, ought not to be held, of itself, to vitiate a sale. Where there is a statute requiring a thing to be done by a known and responsible public officer, it may well be held that he must do it in person. But in a sale under a deed of trust like the present, where private persons appoint other private persons, their heirs and assigns, to make the sale, then if the notice of sale is given, and the deed is executed, by the sole trustee or the two trustees, and the sale is fairly conducted, and no ground otherwise appears for setting it aside, the mere fact that the sale is not attended by the sole trustee, or that it is made in the absence of one or even both of two trustees, is not alone a sufficient ground for holding the sale invalid. The absent trustee or trustees may, after the sale is advertised, become ill, or be called to a distance, not to return for some time. The creditor has rights as well as the debtor, and where, in the case of two trustees, the sale is conducted, as in this case, in pursuance of a notice signed by both of them, conforming to the deed of trust, and previously publicly advertised, and one of them is present, and the sale is fairly and properly made, and the proceedings under the deed of trust are otherwise regular, and both of the trustees after Dissenting Opinion: Field, J. wards execute such a deed as was executed in this case, there is no ground of public policy or private right which requires it to be held that the absence of the second trustee vitiates the sale. After the sale, and on the day on which the deed was executed to Smith, he made a settlement with Latta for the purchase. He elected to consider it as one wholly for cash. This he had a right to do, notwithstanding the terms of sale. No duty of the trustees or of Smith to the plaintiff was violated by this course. The amount of the note and interest was $5,739. 25. The expenses of sale, commissions, taxes, and interest on them were put down at $2,086.78. Deducting this from the $7,000 left $4,913.22 to be credited on the $5,739.25, and that amount was credited on the note that day, leaving a deficiency of $826.03. Even if something less ought to have been charged against the $7,000, leaving the deficiency less than $826.03, it does not appear that there was not a deficiency. The decree of the court in general term, made March 20, 1882, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to reverse, with costs, the decree of the court in special term made April 12, 1881, and to dismiss the bill of complaint, with costs. MR. JUSTICE FIELD, dissenting. I am unable to assent to the judgment of this court, as I do not agree to the conclusion reached on the question of fact as to the previous concurrence of Fuller, one of the trustees of the property, in the notice of sale. He testifies that he never authorized the sale; never heard of it; nor did Smith ever speak to him on the subject until two weeks after it had taken place, when Smith came to his house and got him, then sick in bed, to sign the deed. He also testifies that the signature "John F. Fuller" appended to the notice of sale is not in his handwriting. Under these circumstances I cannot but conclude that Mr. Smith is mistaken in his recollection, and that he has confounded Fuller's subsequent assent to the execution of the deed with a supposed previous assent to the notice of sale. Syllabus. Fuller's ratification of the proceedings by joining in the deed does not remove, in my judgment, this objection, as it is evident that it was executed in ignorance of all the circumstances under which the sale took place. I agree with the court below that, "if a trustee can ratify the acts of his co-trustee, it can only be upon consultation with him, and upon full information as to all the facts;" and it is clear that this information was wanting in the present case. KENTUCKY RAILROAD TAX CASES. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. SAME. CHESAPEAKE, OHIO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SAME. IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. Argued October 16, 19, 1885.-Decided November 16, 1885. A State statute for raising public revenue by the assessment and collection of taxes, which gives notice of the proposed assessment to an owner of property to be affected, by requiring him at a time named to present a statement of his property, with his estimate of its value, to a designated official charged with the duty of receiving the statement; which fixes time and place for public sessions of other officials, at which this statement and estimate are to be considered, where the official valuation is to be made, and when and where the party interested has the right to be present and to be heard; and which affords him opportunity, in a suit at law for the collection of the tax, to judicially contest the validity of the proceeding, does not necessarily deprive him of his property without due process of law," within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 66 VOL. CXV-21 Statement of Facts. A State law for the valuation of property and the assessment of taxes thereon, which provides for the classification of property subject to its provisions into different classes; which makes for one class one set of provisions as to modes and methods of ascertaining the value, and as to right of appeal, and different provisions for another class as to those subjects; but which provides for the impartial application of the same means and methods to all constituents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly on all persons in similar circumstances, denies to no person affected by it "equal protection of the laws," within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth of Kentucky brought its several actions against the railroad companies above named as plaintiffs in error respectively, to recover the amounts of certain taxes levied against each of them, under the provisions of "An act to prescribe the mode of ascertaining the value of the property of railroad companies for taxation, and for taxing the same," ap proved April 3, 1878. Bullitt & Feland's General Statutes of Kentucky, 1881, 1019. As the validity of this statute is drawn in question in these actions, it is here set out in full, as follows: 66 "§ 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the president or chief officer of each railroad company, or other corporation owning a railroad lying in this State, shall, in the month of July in each year, return to the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State, under oath, the total length of such railroad, including the length thereof beyond the limits of the State, and designating its length within this State, and in each county, city, and incorporate town therein, together with the average value per mile thereof, for the purpose of being operated as a carrier of freight and passengers, including engines and cars and a list of the depot grounds and improvements, and other real estate of the said company, and the value thereof, and the respective counties, cities, and incorporated towns, in which the same are located. That if any of said railroad companies owns or operates a railroad or railroads out of this State, but in connection with its road in this State, the president or chief officer of such company shall only be required to return such proportion of the entire value of all its rolling-stock as the number of miles |