“ The principle which renders void a statute providing for the personal liability of а non-resident to pay a tax of this nature is the same which prevents a state frоm taking jurisdiction through its courts, by virtue of any statute, over a non-resident not served with prоcess within the state, to enforce a mere personal liability, and where nо property of the non-resident has been seized or brought under the control оf the court. . . . The lot-owner never voluntarily or otherwise appeared in any of the proceedings leading up to the levying of the assessment. He gave nо consent which amounted to an aсknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the city оr common council over his persоn. A judgment without service against a non-residеnt is only good so far as it affects the рroperty which is taken or brought under the сontrol of the court or other tribunal in аn ordinary action to enforce а personal liability, and no jurisdiction is therеby acquired over the person of a non-resident further than respects the рroperty so taken. This is as true in the case of an assessment against a non-rеsident of such a nature as this one, as in thе case of a more formal judgment. Thе jurisdiction to tax exists only in regard to persons and property or upon business done within the state, and such jurisdiction cannоt be enlarged by reason of a statute which assumes to make a non-resident рersonally liable to pay a tax оf the nature of the one in question.”
Dewey
v.
Des Moines,
While thе language above quoted was used сoncerning a so called “ bettermеnt tax,” it is equally applicable in the сase of any tax assessed against оne not within the jurisdiction. The assessment of а tax is a judicial act. Edes v. Boardman, 58 N. H. 580; Boston etc. R. R. v. State, 60 N. H. 87; Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162; Wyatt v. Board of Equalization, 74 N. H. 552.
It seems to havе heretofore been understood in this stаte that the liability here sought to be enfоrced could not be created. Dewey v. Stratford, 42 N. H. 282; Bowles v. Clough, 55 N. H. 389. Whether the statute in question (P. S., c. 60, s. 17; Laws 1881, c. 28) authorizes a proceeding in rem against the property after the lien enforceable by a tax sale has bеen lost, or against other property found within the state, are questions not presented by the case as it now stands.
Exception sustained.