HUBBARD v. WINSOR. personal, was excessive; that the supervisors did not properly determine the amount of taxes to be levied, and that such action as they took was had too late. It is also claimed that the proceedings to complete the roll and warrant, and file the Treasurer's bond, were not had within the statutory period, and that as to one parcel of land assessed, the description is defective. It appears in proof also, that the taxes were extended at about fifteen per cent. too much. We think the objections concerning the mode of assessing real estate are not tenable. It appears that the land was all handed in on one list with other property belonging to the firm, and as it is alleged in the bill to be held in joint tenancy, there could be no assessment of shares in it individually to the owners severally, because their estate as set out is indivisible. We can not perceive how any injury could accrue from this assessment, which is substantially, if not technically, made to the true legal owners. The objections to the conduct of the supervisor in refusing to allow evidence to reduce the valuation are not made out by proofs, and the charges are denied. The order of the supervisors fixing the amount of taxes was not made until November 12th. That meeting was one upon adjournment from the 10th, which was also an adjourned meeting continued from October. The law requires the supervisors to act at "their session in October."-1 C. L. § 807. The law gives them power to adjourn their meetings from time to time, as they may deem necessary. — 1 C. L. $335. We think the session in October embraces all adjournments, although they may run into another month, and that the law merely refers to it by way of designation. Instead of fixing a specific sum to be raised by taxation, the board directed a per centage on the assessed 15 Mich. - L. HUBBARD V. WINSOR. value. The legislature subsequently passed a statute designed to legalize this method of taxation, and it is claimed this statute is void. We do not perceive any illegality in the original proceedings, and do not deem it necessary to inquire into the validity of the law. The designation of a per centage on a definite sum is just as certain as if it were calculated and stated in figures, and leaves nothing to be done to make it known, except a simple computation. It would be absurd to hold a tax valid or void according as a sum of this nature is done by one or another officer from the same data. The law presumes that the rules of arithmetic are the same in all offices. There is no dispute but that all other steps were taken, and regular except as to time. As the proceedings required by law and the filing of the treasurer's bond took place before the roll was required to be handed over, we think the delay immaterial. Nor do we think the delay in appending the warrant furnishes any ground of relief. It is also urged that a description of a tract of land "less lots sold," renders the assessment invalid as to that parcel. This objection is not pointed out by the bill, and, so far as it appears, the assessment follows the list of property handed in. Although, if so described, the land cannot be held bound, yet complainants should have pointed out this defect specifically, if they meant to rely upon it; and should not be allowed to object in this court to their own description. The defect is one which would destroy the tax at law as well as in equity, and under the circumstances we must leave them to their legal remedy. The excess in the amount of taxes levied is not mentioned in the bill, and appears for the first time in the proofs. This evidence, not being applicable to any allegation in the pleadings can form no basis for relief. NEWBOULD v. STEWART. Warner v. Whittaker, 6 Mich. 133; Peckham v. Buffam, 11 Id. 529; Moran v. Palmer, 13 Id. 367. The decree below must be reversed, and the bill must be dismissed, with costs of both courts. The other Justices concurred. 15 155 188 John A. Newbould and others v. Charles H. Stewart 141 and others. Decree not drawn up: Appeal. Where a decision is announced, but no decree is actually drawn up or filed, Held, there is no legal determination of the cause, and therefore nothing to appeal from. Heard and decided November 10th. Appeal in Chancery from Wayne Circuit. This was a motion to docket and dismiss the appeal. S. T. Douglass, for the motion. William Gray, contra. The court below had announced its decision, but no decree had been actually drawn up or filed. It was held that under these circumstances there was no legal determination of the cause, and therefore nothing to appeal from. The appeal was dismissed as premature. THE PEOPLE ย. THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF NANKIN. The People ex rel. Dean v. The Board of Registration of Nankin. Board of Registration: Their duty as to the mode of determining the qualifications of voters. When a person applies to the Board of Registration for the purpose of having his name registered as a voter, and offers to be sworn as to his qualifications, it is the duty of the board to examine such person upon his oath. They have no right to reject him on mere inspection. Where the return made by respondents denies that the relator was entitled to be registered as a voter, an issue will be directed to determine the fact. Heard and decided November 9th, 1866. Petition for mandamus. This was a petition for an order that respondents show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel them to register the name of the relator as a legal elector of said township, upon his showing to them, in the manner required by law, his right to such registration. The petition of Dean set forth that he was a citizen of the State of Michigan, and a resident of the township of Nankin, Wayne county, in which place he had resided for nine months, and in the state ten years, and that he was thirty years of age; that he was a white person, and a legal elector under the Constitution of the state, and that his father and mother were each of them white persons, though possessing less than one-sixteenth Indian blood, and that he (the petitioner) had less than one thirty-second of Indian blood in his veins, the balance being pure white or Caucassian; that on the third day of November last, he applied to the board of registration of the town of Nankin for the purpose of having his name registered among the legal electors of that town, and requested the said board to register his name as such elector, and offered to make oath, as required by law, of his possessing the requisite legal qualifications which entitled him to such registration, but that the said board refused to register his name, or to put him upon his oath, as requested; THE PEOPLE V. THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF NANKIN. and did declare that the petitioner was a negro, and that they would not examine him in relation thereto. The answer of respondents set forth that they had always considered relator as a negro; that upon his application he tendered no evidence of his statement excepting his own oath, and that from their previous knowledge of him, his dusky complexion and curly hair, they still considered him a negro. The answer also admitted, as set forth in the petition, that they refused to receive his oath at the time of his application. H. M. Cheever, for relator. When a specific duty is imposed by statute, as in this case, upon public officers, and they refuse to execute it, they may be compelled to act, by mundamus, and as to corporations and ministerial officers, the writ may also direct how they shall act.-20 Barb. 294; 1 Barb. S. C. R. 34; 1 Doug. 319; 20 Wend. 658. It has been granted to compel such officers to meet and perform a duty; e. g. to restore names struck off an assessment roll. -4 Hill, 20; 4 Seld. 318. In this case, the duties of respondents is clearly defined by section 12 of the Registry Act.-Laws of 1858, p. 490. After providing for a session of the board, to be held at a specified time, it says: "During this session it shall be the right of each and every person who, at the next approaching election or township meeting, may be a qualified elector, and entitled to vote thereat, and whose name is not already registered, to have his name duly entered on such register, which shall be done in the manner and form above set forth. The board shall have the power, and it shall be their duty, and the duty of the clerk, and of the supervisors individually, when acting under this statute, to question every person presenting himself for registration touching his residence and his other qualifications as an elector of the township, and it shall be the |