Appeal from the County Court, Twentieth Judicial District, Santa Clara County.

The plaintiff was the owner of a railroad, extending from the city of San José, county of Santa Clara, through the counties . of Alameda, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Placer and Nevada, to the eastern boundary of the State, and thence to Ogden, in the Territory of Utah. Eight and ^ miles of its road was in the county of Santa Clara, which was assessed for the fiscal year 1872-3 at $7,000 per mile. The complaint contained several allegations of irregularity in the assessment, and of errors committed by the Boards of Supervisors in the several counties, in equalizing the assessments on the railroad. It was alleged concerning the Assessors, “ that in matingAheir assessment, they did not assess the right of way separately as land consisting of so many acres of such or such a value per acre. Nor did they describe it by reference to township, or range, or section, or fractional section, or by metes and bounds, or by other description, except as hereinafter stated. Nor did they assess separately the improvement, or iron and ties constituting said superstructure as improvements of such or such a value, according to the cash value of said ties and iron. Nor did they value said lands at their cash value as lands, or as of the same value as other adjoining lands of like quality. . On the contrary, they assessed said right of way and superstructure together as constituting one thing, and described them as so many miles of railroad of such or such a value per mile, without regard to the width of the right of way.”

The closing allegations of the complaint were as follows:

Wherefore said plaintiff charges that the assessment made in said county of Santa Clara was and is illegal, yet the same has come into and now is in the hands of said defendant for collection by forced sale of - so much of said road as lies in his county, and he will sell the same at public auction pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, and will give to the purchaser thereof a certificate of sale, and in due time thereafter a deed thereof which will be conclusive evidence of the validity of said assessment and the regularity of all proceedings thereon, unless he be enjoined from so doing by the order of this Court.

The Court granted a preliminary injunction, but, on motion of the defendant, on the 29th day of May, 1873, dissolved it.

The plaintiff appealed from .the order dissolving the injunction.