The opinion
MekrihoN, C. J.
after stating the facts: It is settled by many decisions of this Court that the
equation and limitation of taxation
established by the Constitution (Art. 5, § 1) prohibits and prevents the levy of a greater capitation tax than two dollars on each taxable poll, and a tax for the equal amount on property valued at three hundred dollars in cash, to raise revenue for the
ordinary
purposes of the State and county governments. This is equal to a tax levy of 66$ cents on property valued at one hundred dollars in cash. For such purposes, the whole tax levy cannot exceed the sums mentioned.
Railroad
v.
Holden,
63 N. C., 410 ;
Mauney
v.
Commissioners,
71 N. C., 486 ;
Trull
v.
Commissioners,
72 N. C., 388 ;
French
v.
Commissioners,
74 N. C., 692 ;
Griffeen
v.
Commissioners, id.,
701;
Clifton
v.
Wynne,
80 N. C., 145 ;
Barksdale
v.
Commissioners,
93 N. C., 472 .
*113
The taxes for the State are levied by statute, and before the levy for the several counties, by the proper county authorities; and hence, as well as for other reasons, the tax levy for the State is paramount, has precedence and must prevail to the exclusion, if need be, of the like levy for the county, unless otherwise provided by statute. And, moreover, the several counties can only levy taxes to meet the
ordinary
expenses of the county government within the limitation of taxation mentioned, and to the extent the power of taxation for ordinary State and county purposes has not been exhausted by the levy for the State. Any levy for such purpose beyond this limitation would be void, because in violation of the Constitution and without authority.
The statute (Acts 1889, ch. 216, § 3) prevailing at the time the defendant Commissioners and Justices of the Peace undertook and purported to make the tax levy in question, levied a tax for the ordinary purposes of the State of 25 cents on property of the value of one hundred dollars. The other statute
(The Code,
§ 2589) also levied a tax of 12J- cents on property of the like value, for the support of the public schools; and the other statute (Acts 1889, ch. 198, § 17) also levied a like tax of 3 cents for pensions. Thus the tax levy for the ordinary purposes of the State was 40J cents on property of the value of one hundred dollars. This left the
county
authorities named at liberty, within the limitation, to levy a tax for ordinary county purposes of only 26-J- cents on property valued at one hundred dollars. For the reasons already stated they could not exceed that sum. Hence the levy they undertook to make in excess of it was void. The levy made by them wras valid only to the extent of 26-J- cents on property valued at one hundred dollars.
The levy of 12-J- cents school tax for the State, and 3 cents for pensions was not formally and specifically set forth in the tax list, a copy of which wras directed and delivered to
*114
the Sheriff, as directed by the statute (Acts 1889, ch. 216, § 38), as it should have been. Nevertheless, the Sheriff, as tax collector, collected as taxes a sum of money equal to the whole levy for the State, as explained above, and also the lawful levy for the county, to-wit, 26-J- cents for the county. The excess of this levy collected as for the county could not, did not, make it belong to the county; the hitter was not entitled to have it, because, as to it, the levy for the county was void, it being to that extent in excess of the limitation of taxation. Although the money was so collected as taxes for the county, it, in contemplation of law, belonged to the State by virtue of the levy for public schools. The mere fact that it was collected as taxes under an improper head, informally and under misapprehension, could not entitle the county to have it, nor could such fact deprive the State of the right to have it by virtue of the lawful levy for a lawful purpose. ' To place the tax levied by the statute on the tax-list, was not essential to create the right of the State. If the county authorities had undertaken to levy and collect taxes for county purposes to the amount of sixty-six and two-third cents on property of the value of one hundred dollars, ignoring the statutory levy for the State, this surely could not have the effect to deprive the State of so much of the taxes collected as might be embraced bj^ the levy for it. In such case it ivould be the duty of the Sheriff to account and pay to the State its part of the taxes collected. From the tax list the State’s share could be readily ascertained.
Clifton
v.
Wynne, supra.
The money in question, therefore, belongs to the State.
Judgment affirmed.