delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit for “ back taxes,” instituted on the relation of the collector of taxes for the city of St. Louis, under the act of April 12, 1877. It seems that two suits were commenced, in eаch of which George W. Kerr was a defendant, charged as owner of the land assessed, but the other defendаnts, sued as encumbrancers, were not the same in the twо cases. The Circuit Court ordered a consolidation, and the two causes were tried as one. Defendants allege that this was error. The irregularity, if any, was not objected to in the court below, and was cured by the finding and judgment.
The court, sitting as a jury, ascertained and stated in its finding of facts the several parcels of land upon which the back taxes were due as charged in the petitiоn, with the several and respective amounts due upon each, including all the costs and expenses, as рrovided for in the act of the
Defendants object that the provision in the act whereby attorneys’ fees may be taxed as costs is unconstitutional, as creating a new liability, and therefore retrospective in its operatiоn. We do not perceive that such is its effect. The рrovision is purely remedial, and stands upon a like foоting with any other provision for compelling the delinquent to bear the expenses incident to an enforcement of the State’s claim for taxes.
The defendants’ mоtion for new trial alleges only two causes : 1. That the judgmеnt was against the law and the evidence. 2. That the court admitted improper evidence for the plaintiff. Wе have already noticed all the points presented under the first alleged cause. As to the second, nо exceptions were saved by defendants to any оf the testimony introduced in the trial.
For error in the entry of judgment, the judgment below will be reversed. The findings of fact being properly stated and duly founded upon the evidence, need not be disturbed. A proper judgment will therefore be entered in this court upon the findings appearing in the record.