after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The lands in question were assessed in pursuance of sections 1 and 6, of chapter 11, of the General Statutes of the State of Minnesota, entitled “ Taxes,” which are as follows:
“ § 1. All real and personal property in this State, and all personal property of persons residing therein, the property of corporations now existing, or hereafter created, and the property of all banks or banking companies now existing or hеreafter created, and of all. bankers, except such as is hereinafter expressly exceptеd, is subject to taxation, and such property, or the value thereof, shall be entered in the list of taxable рroperty for that purpose, in the manner prescribed by this act: provided, that railroad, insurance and telegraрh companies shall be taxed in such manner as now is or may be hereafter fixed by law.”
“ § 6. All real property in this State, subject to taxation, shall be listed and assessed every even-numbered year, with reference to its valuе on the first day of May preceding the assessment; and all real estate becoming taxable any intervening year shall be listed and assessed with reference to its value on the first day of May of that year.” Stats. Minn. 1878, 4th ed. c. 11, §§ 1 and 6; Stаts. Minn. JL891, §§ 1382, 1428 and references.
Sections 1 and 7, c. 12, of the Revised Statutes of the Territory of Minnesota for the year 1851 (p. 94) read:
“ Sec. 1. All property, real and personal, within the Territory, not expressly exempted therefrom, shаll be subject to taxation in the manner provided by' law.”
“ Sec. 7. The real estate of incorporated companies, liable to taxation, shall be assessed in the district in which the same shall lie, in the same manner as the real estate of individuals.”
*286 By section 2 of the schedule of the state constitution, adopted in 1857, it was provided: “ All laws now in force in the Territory of Minnesota not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or be altered or repealed by the legislature.” Stats. Minn. 1878, p. 30.
We are met on the threshold of the case by the objection that the writ of error cannot be maintained.
It is conceded that the Suprеme Court of Minnesota did not put its decision on the ground that there was not a valid contract between the Stаte and the company exempting its property from taxation, but held that the exemption claimed did not аttach to these lands, and it is argued that
“
if such lands' are within the contract of exemption contained in the company’s charter, then the obligation of that contract was impaired by the assessment, under chapter 11 of the general laws of the State, and the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the lands were subject to assessment under such laws.” Our jurisdiction cannot be maintained upon that view. As stated by Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the сourt, in
New Orleans Waterworks Company
v.
Louisiana Sugar Refining
Company,
The position of the State was not that the lands in quеstion were rendered taxable by any law passed subsequent to the company’s charter, but that under the terms оf the contract itself the lands were taxable. No subsequent law is referred to upon which the opinion of thе court proceeded; on the contrary, the la'w was the same, so far- as any question arising here was сoncerned, as that above quoted from .the territorial law of 1851. What the court held was that statutes -imposing rеstrictions upon the taxing power of a State, except so far as they tend to secure uniformity and equаlity of assessment, are to be strictly construed,
Bank
v.
Tennessee,
Dismissed.