The original assessment of the plaintiffs’ mills for taxation on 1 May, 1920, was $19,480,308. This was reduced by the State Tax Commission, on appeal, to $16,961,308, and later there was an order of the commission allowing to the county of Cabarrus the further rebate on its total valuation of $3,000,000, all of which was applied to reduction of the tax valuation of the plaintiffs’ property; no part of the same being allotted to any other mill owner or other taxpayer whatever in Cabarrus. By these reductions the valuation of the combined mill property of the plaintiffs was reduced to $13,961,308, upon which amount the county commissioners of said county based their tax rate for the fiscal year 1920, and upon which the said county was seeking to collect its taxes.
On 10 August, 1920, the State Tax Commission made their final report of the assessed value of the property for taxation in each county, in which the valuation for Cabarrus County was $49,473,505.
In paragraph 7 of the further answer of the defendants (record, page 18), it is alleged as follows: “The total valuation of all property in Cabarrus County fixed in said report was $49,473,505, and the original and lawful assessments of the property of the complainants as fixed and determined by the board of appraisers and review, on which taxes are now sought to be collected were included in this valuation so reported by the Tax Commission to the General Assembly, extra session 1920.”
In the replication to this by the plaintiffs on page 28, paragraph 7, it is said: “Paragraph 7 is admitted, except that it is denied that the assessment made against the property of these plaintiffs by the board of appraisers and review of Cabarrus County was lawful, and except that it is alleged that said report was made subject to the right of the State Tax Commission to change the valuation so placed by the board of appraisers and review of Cabarrus County upon the property of these plaintiffs, from which appeals were pending before the said commission when said report was made and when the special session of the Legislature adjourned.”
*557Tbis presents clear-cut tbe matter at issue in this proceeding. The tax assessment against Cabarrus County reported by the State Tax Commission, and transmitted by the Governor to the General Assembly, 10 August, 1920, was ratified and made final by sec. 1, ch. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1920, reading as follows: “The assessment or valuation of property made under the provisions of Public Laws of 1919, ch. 84, is hereby approved by the General Assembly, and adopted as the basis for the levy of tax rates by the State and by all subdivisions of the State for which taxes are levied for the year 1920, and the valuation of real property so fixed shall be adopted for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923, except that such valuations may be hereafter changed according to law.”
There is in this statute no exception or authority, by reason of any alleged pending appeals or otherwise, for the State Tax Commission to change this final assessment so approved by the General Assembly.
The plaintiffs, however, contend that by action of the State Tax Commission on 3 January, 1921, the valuation of the property of the plaintiffs was reduced by a further allowance 'of $4,654,619, leaving the total assessments for taxes against the plaintiffs of $9,306,689, and asked an injunction against the collection of taxes in accordance with the tax list in the hands of the sheriff on said $4,654,619 by reason of this alleged reduction.
The defendants, the county commissioners and sheriff, filed an answer denying that in fact the State Tax Commission, on 3 January, 1921, had made such reduction, and also denied that it was lawful if it had been made. The defendants also excepted to the evidence in that there was no statement certified down by the State Tax Commission of such alleged reduction by the signature of either of the tax commissioners, nor under the seal of the Tax Commission, and they objected to the introduction of evidence upon these grounds, and also because there was no evidence of the signature even of the clerk who had written the letter making such statement, and they also introduced the affidavit of a former clerk of the State Tax Commission, in whose hands all appeals had passed down to 1 November, 1921, that there was no appeal pending in which said reduction could have been allowed, and that the chairman of the State Tax Commission had admitted that there had been no .such order of reduction attempted by the State Tax Commission as alleged by the plaintiffs.
In view of the issues of fact raised by the pleadings and on the evidence, it was error, in any view, for the judge to grant a permanent injunction against the collection by the sheriff of $22,342.17 which had been duly assessed by the tax list against the property of the plaintiffs for the issues of fact could only be determined by a jury.
*558However, it is not necessary to grant a new trial upon this ground, for upon consideration of tbe report of tbe Tax Commission made to tbe Governor and transmitted by bim to tbe General Assembly as tbe final assessment of tbe property in tbe 100 counties of tbe State, and tbe enactment by tbe Legislature on 26 August, 1921, above set out, we are of opinion tbat there was no authority in tbe State Tax Commission, whether there were or were not appeals pending from any county, to change or modify in any way tbe action of tbe General Assembly which in its terms was final.
Whether or not there .was any action by tbe State Tax Commission subsequent to tbe ratification of tbat act attempting to modify tbe valuation assessed against tbe plaintiffs as embraced in tbe report of tbe State Tax Commission and tbe act of tbe Legislature, tbe State Tax Commission was functus officio as to any power to change in any way tbe valuation of tbe plaintiffs’ property if it was attempted in January, 1921, as alleged, and tbe injunction appealed from must be set aside, and tbe sheriff of Cabarrus will proceed to collect tbe taxes assessed against tbe plaintiffs according to tbe list placed in bis bands by tbe commissioners in October, 1921, and therewith collect tbe deferred interest on tbe amount which appears on tbe tax list to be still' due and unpaid by tbe plaintiffs according to tbe tenor of tbe mandate to bim directed by tbe defendants, county commissioners.
Eeversed.