15y SEDJiBAL BEPOBTEII. �■which was required to give the board of supervisors jurisdic- tion for the purposes of the equalization of taxes, and for car- rying out the details of the assessment which the assessors had made. The board of supervisors had determined the rate, and the assessors had determined the valuation. It was the duty of the city clerk of Utica to extend the tax. He omit- ted to do so as to the stockholders of the complainant until after the roll had been delivered to the treasurer. From the nature of the act, and from the character of the officiai to whom it is entrusted, the act is evidently a clerical one. No substantial injury could resnlt from the omission to perform it. The computation and insertion of the amount of the tax after the roll had been delivered to the treasurer was an irregularity. It was done by the person whose duty it was to do it. It was done after all the data to be ascertained by the assessors and the board of supervisors had been ascer- tained according to law. In effect and character it was as though the clerk of a court, in entering a judgment, had oom- puted the sum adjudged due when the verdict of a jury or the decision of the judge had determined everything essential to the judgment except the resuit of a mathematical compu- tation. No one would contend that such a judgment would be void. When the assessment roll and warrant came to the hands of the collector they were apparently regular. In the case of the Albany City Bank v* Maher* the assessors had omitted to perform an act prerequisite to their authority to make any assessment, and the assessment was, therefore, void. Here it was simply irregular. In Bellinger v. Gray, 51 N. Y. 610, and in Westfall v. Preston, 49 N. Y. 349, the defect in the proceedings by which the tax was imposed ap- peared in the papers which constituted the process of the col- lector for collecting the tax. �The complainant cannot succeed upon either branch of its case. Motion for injunction denied. �*See 6 FED. Ebp. 417. ��� �
