UNITED STATES V. LABETTE COUNTY. 325 �torm, comœanding eacli to perform the duty required of him by law with respect to the levy, collection, and paying over the tax. But that bas not been done. The case is one in which, by inadvertence, the command of the writ is too broad ; it commands the board to perform the functions which belong to other officiais. The remedy is to take a new writ against the clerk and treasurer, commanding them to dis- charge their duties. Such writs will be freely granted at any time. �4. Counsel for relator have suggested that the board have not done all that was in their power in their endeavor to obey the writ. It is said that they might, after levying the tax, institute proceedings in mandamus to compel the other officiais of the county to go on and collect and pay over, and that they might sue such officiais on their officiai bonds for damages for their failure to do so. I suppose the board could do either or both of these things; and, if relator in- sists, an order may issue directing them to institute such proceedings, or to show cause why they have not done so. But I think the counsel will, upon alittle reflection, conclude that the relief he would obtain in this way would probably prove to be very inadequate. No other remedy is likely to be found so effectuai as that which is afforded by the writ of mandamus issued by the court in which the judgment is ren- dered, and addressed to the officiai or officiais whose duty it is to levy, collect, and pay over the taxes requisite for the satisfaction of the judgment. �The demurrer is overruled. ��� �
