Const., Art. VII, sec. 9 (C. S., 2678), is as follows:
“All taxes levied by any county, city, town, or township shall be uniform and ad valorem upon all property in the same, except property exempted by this Constitution.”
*243 Burwell, J., in Loan Asso. v. Comrs., 115 N. C., p. 413, construing this provision, says: “Hence, if there is any statute . . . that attempts to make the burden of taxation it bears greater or less than that which is laid on other property of the same situs and value, such legislation is unconstitutional and void.” In Hart v. Comrs., 192 N. C., 165, it is held: “With reference to locality, a tax is uniform when it operates with equal force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found, and with reference to classification, it is uniform when it operates without distinction or discrimination upon all persons composing the described class,” citing cases.
The right to levy the tax on 8 September, 1926, is conceded. As to the right under the resolution of 7 October, 1926, the defendants cite a case that refers to the cases of Wilmington v. Cronly, 122 N. C., pp. 383 and 389. The first case, in substance, decides: It is competent for the General Assembly to provide for the collection of arrearages of taxes due for past years when ascertained in the mode prescribed by law. Neither the three nor the ten years statute of limitations applies to an act authorizing the State or a county or city to recover delinquent taxes, unless such act expressly so provides. See Manning v. R. R., 188 N. C., p. 665; New Hanover County v. Whitman, 190 N. C., p. 332.
In the present action the attempted levy of 7 October, 1926, in the legal situs or boundaries in the school district in and outside of the city of Washington, N. C., was not uniform and ad valorem; therefore, unconstitutional and void. There was no statute cited that gave any right to levy for back taxes (Wilmington v. Cronly, supra), nor one cited that gave any right to levy at the time it was done; therefore, the attempted levy of 7 October, 1926, was illegal.
In Hammond v. McRae, 182 N. C., p. 754, it is said: “It may be well to note that as to all liabilities theretofore incurred, and all bonds theretofore issued under statutes or elections requiring the levy of a tax on both property and poll, the power and obligation to levy the tax on both will continue, for a State, no more by constitutional amendment than by statute, can impair the vested rights held by the creditors in assurance of his debt. Smith v. Comrs., ante, 149, citing, among others, Port of Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S., 289.” Spitzer v. Comrs., 188 N. C., p. 30.
In the present case the city of Washington has paid the interest on the bonds, and the levy of 7 October, 1926, is to reimburse the city.
Chapter 102, Public Laws 1925, see. 72, makes provision for commissioners to enter property escaping taxation, “When no assessment has been made for the years in which said property has so escaped taxation, the board of commissioners shall be authorized to value and assess the same for those years: Providedthis shall not apply beyond five years.” Carstarphen v. Plymouth, 186 N. C., p. 90.
*244"We have been cited to no legislative authority or case, and we have no knowledge of any, that allows a levy for back taxes under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Por the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.