Statement of Facts. County Court to levy similar special taxes to pay various other judgments rendered against the county, upon like demands, in favor of several other plaintiffs. In obedience to these writs the County Court levied a special tax, denominated “judgment tax," sufficient to pay off all the judgments, and caused the same to be placed on the tax books of the county, and the tax books to be delivered to the collector of the county for the collection of the tax. A part of this tax so levied was levied in obedience to the writ of mandamus in the case of this plaintiff against the county, and for the purpose of raising money to pay off his judgment. "Wherefore the plaintiff," the petition averred, "had a vested right and interest in said special tax to the amourt of his judgment, interest and costs." After the special tax had been levied, and the tax book placed in the hands of the collector for collection, the defendants, with about two thousand other evil-disposed persons, residents of Scotland County, for the purpose of depreciating the value of the bonds held by the plaintiff, and thereby inducing and compelling him to compromise his judgment and bonds at much less than their value, did unlawfully and maliciously, and in contempt of the orders and mandates of the Circuit Court, combine and conspire to hinder and prevent the County Court and the collector, from performing the things required by the mandate of the Circuit Court, to wit, the collection and payment of the special tax. To this end the defendants and their confederates organized themselves into an association called "The Tax-payers' Association of Scotland County," with branch organizations in various school districts of the county, for the purpose, among other things, of resisting the collection of the special tax, and the defendants and their confederates did pledge themselves to contribute of their means and influence, and to protect each other in all efforts made to resist the payment thereof. In furtherance of their design, the defendants and their con federates, members of said association, made and published threats of violence against the attorneys of the plaintiff, who were employed to represent him in the collection of his judg ment; and gave out and circulated the threat that no person Statement of Facts. would be allowed to bid upon, or purchase any property that might be offered for sale by the collector to enforce the payment of the special tax, intending thereby to intimidate any person from bidding upon or purchasing any property offered for sale by the collector for the payment thereof. To induce the tax-payers of the county to join the association and aid in carrying out their unlawful conspiracy, the defend-. ants and their confederates falsely and fraudulently gave out and published, that such bonds and special tax were illegal, null and void, and that they were under no obligation, legal or moral, to pay the same, well knowing that such declarations were false. During the month of February, 1878, the collector of the county, for the purpose of collecting the special tax, levied upon a large number of horses and mules, and advertised them to be sold on February 28, 1878, at Memphis, in said county of Scotland; whereupon the defendants and their confederates, in order to prevent the sale of the property so levied on, and prevent the payment of plaintiff's judgment, and so to harass and wrong him as to induce him to compromise his judgment and bonds at much less than their value, assembled in vast numbers at the time and place advertised for the sale, and, by their combined influence, threats and hostile demonstrations, did so overawe and intimidate the persons who had gone to the place of sale, for the purpose of and with intent to bid on the property, as to prevent them from bidding when the same was offered for sale; and, by reason of such combined influence, threats and menaces, the defendants and their confederates, members of said association, acting under its orders, did prevent any person from bidding on the property when so offered for sale, and did prevent it from being sold. The unlawful combination and conspiracy of the defendants, to injure and defraud the plaintiff, and prevent the collection of his judgment, still exists; and, by reason of the combined influence, threats, menaces and hostile demonstrations of the defendants, the tax-payers of Scotland County are overawed and intimidated, and so influenced that they do not pay the special tax, nor has the collector, by reason of said combination Argument for Defendants in Error. and association, been able to collect the same. The plaintiff, by reason of the premises, has been damaged to the amount of his judgment, to wit, $4,008.86, with interest thereon from September 25, 1877, and costs; for which, with $3,000 exemplary damages, he demands judgment against the defendants. The defendants demurred to the petition. In support of their demurrer they assigned and argued, both in the Circuit Court and this court, the following grounds: 1. That the plaintiff had no such legal property interest in the taxes in question as to entitle him to maintain actions for conspiracy. 2. That he had sustained no legal damages by the alleged acts of the defendants. The court sustained the demurrer, and rendered a judgment for the defendants, to reverse which the plaintiff brought this writ of error. Mr. A. J. Baker and Mr. F. T. Hughes, for plaintiff in error. Mr. H. A. Cunningham and Mr. James O. Broadhead, for defendants in error.-There are two main propositions, either one of which ought to conclusively determine this case in favor of the defendants. 1. The plaintiff has no such legal property interest in the taxes in question as to entitle him to maintain actions for conspiracy. 2. The plaintiff has sustained no legal damages by the alleged acts of the defendants. These propositions will be considered together. The judg ments are against the county, an artificial person. Individual tax-payers are not liable, nor are the judgments liens on their property. The responsibility of tax-payers is to the tax officers, not to creditors of the county to whom the money may or may not go when collected. True, when the law says that taxes may be levied by certain officers, as county courts, to pay certain debts, and collected by certain county collectors, the courts may by mandamus compel those officers to proceed to the performance of their duties, but this in nowise enlarges the Opinion of the Court. scope of their official powers. The courts can only command them to proceed according to the law defining their duties. See Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; Heine v. Levee Commissioners, 17 Wall. 655; Barkley v. Levee Commissioners, 93 U. S. 258. Mandamus is the remedy against an officer in such case, simply because there is no other. But mandamus will not lie against the tax-payer to compel him to pay the tax. That is a question between him and the collector. There is no relation between the tax-payer and the plaintiff which warrants an action for conspiracy. No action lies for a simple conspiracy to do an unlawful act. The act itself and the resulting damage are the only grounds of action. Kimbal v. Harmon, 34 Maryland, 401, 407; Adler v. Fenton, 24 How. 408 is much in point. See Saville v. Roberts, 1 Ld. Raymond, 374; Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 N. Y. 104; Lamb v. Stone, 11 Pick. 527; Wellington v. Small, 3 Cush. 145; Smith v. Blake, 1 Day, 258; Barnet v. Davidson, 10 Ired. 94; Green v. Kimble, 6 Blackford, 552; Cowles v. Day, 30 Conn. 406, 410. In an action for conspiracy to injure, the damage, and not the conspiracy, is the gist of the action. Laverty v. Van Arsdale, 65 Penn. St. 507; Parker v. Huntingdon, 2 Gray, 124; Jones v. Baker, 7 Cowen, 445; Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 Hill, 104; specially Adler v. Fenton, 24 How. 408. If the plaintiff may have redress by any of the forms of action now known or practised it would be unwise and unsafe to sanction an untried one, the practical operation of which cannot be foreseen. Lamb v. Stone, cited above; Randall v. Hazelton, 12 Allen, 412; Anthony v. Slaid, 11 Metcalf, 290 (Shaw, Ch. J.). These taxes can only be collected in the manner and by the officers designated by law, and this court cannot indirectly collect them. The plaintiff's judginent against the county remains unaffected, with full right to enforce it in a legal way. The tax-payers, not being debtors of the plaintiff, these actions will not lie. MR. JUSTICE WOons delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts in the foregoing language, and continued: The facts stated in the petition are admitted by the demurrer, and, for the present consideration of the case, must be taken as Opinion of the Court. true. The statutes of Missouri, which were in force when the bonds mentioned in the petition were issued, and which still remain in force, provide as follows: There shall be a collector of revenue for every county, who shall give bond conditioned that he will faithfully and punctually collect and pay over all State, county and other revenue for the two years next ensuing the first day of March thereafter. After the tax book for the year has been.corrected, and the amount of the county tax stated therein, the County Court shall cause the same to be delivered to the collector, and he shall be charged with the whole amount of the tax book so delivered to him. The collector shall diligently endeavor and use all lawful means to collect the taxes which he is required to collect in his county. After the first day of October he shall have power to seize and sell the goods and chattels of any person liable for taxes, in the same manner as goods and chattels are or may be required to be seized and sold under executions issued in judgments at law; and no property shall be exempt from seizure and sale for taxes due on lands and personal property. The collector, having made settlement according to law of the revenue collected by him, shall pay the amount found due into the county treasury. When a demand against a county is presented to the County Court, the court shall ascertain the amount due and order it to be paid out of the particular fund-designating it—applicable to the payment of such demand, and order their clerk to issue a warrant therefor on the treasurer of the county, which shall designate the particular fund out of which the same is to be paid. The treasurer of the county is required to make an entry in a book to be kept by him of all warrants for money lawfully drawn by the County Court presented to him for payment; and all warrants so presented shall be paid out of the funds mentioned in such warrants, and in the order in which they shall be presented for payment. See sections 5370, 5394, 6733, 6754, 6774, 6821, 6822, Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1879. The question presented by the demurrer to the petition is not one of the measure of damages. If the plaintiff has sustained any substantial injury by reason of the wrongful acts of |