stand committed until the fine is paid, although there be no specific affirmative grant of power in the statute to make such direction."

In so far, then, as the case of Ex parte Erdman, supra, decided in 1891, lays down principles in conflict with the case of Ex parte Kelly, decided in 1865, and People v. Markham, supra, decided in 1857, it was in effect overruled by Ex parte Karlson, supra, decided in 1911. We are therefore free to consider the question here involved upon its merits and in consonance with the decisions sustaining the power to punish by imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine as an incident to the collection of the fine.

If the conviction was in the superior court the limitation in section 1205 of the Penal Code would clearly apply and require the discharge of the petitioner, but the conviction in this case was in the justice's court, and section 1446 of the Penal Code applies unless the amendment to section 1205 in 1891 was a limitation upon justices' courts as well as upon superior courts. We may say that the latter point is not advanced by the petitioner and it is clear that it is not tenable for the reasons heretofore given.

[1] We conclude, then, that under the provisions of section 1446 of the Penal Code a justice's court may, upon imposing a fine for the offense of having intoxicating liquor in possession, direct the imprisonment of the defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 1446; that is to say, at the rate of one dollar per day until the fine be satisfied.

Petitioner remanded.

Myers, J., Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., Waste, J., Kerrigan, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

190 Cal.-50

[L. A. No. 7003. In Bank.-April 11, 1923.]

PASADENA UNIVERSITY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, etc., Respondent.

[1] TAXATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SECTION 1A,

ARTICLE

XIII, CONSTITUTION-CONSTRUCTION.-Under section la of article XIII of the constitution, which provides, "Any educational institution of collegiate grade, within the State of California, not conducted for profit, shall hold exempt from taxation its building and equipment, its grounds within which its buildings are located, not exceeding one hundred acres in area, its securities and income used exclusively for the purposes of education," exemption is granted to an institution of collegiate grade as a whole and not otherwise.

[2] ID. INSTITUTION OF DIFFERENT GRADES CLASSIFICATION OF UNIVERSITY.—A university made up or composed of a number of grades or groups of students ranking in classification below the grade defined as a collegiate grade, and whose largest number of enrolled students are not within the collegiate grade classification, is not and cannot be characterized as an institution exclusively of any particular grade, but one of many grades.

[3] STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION-ENUMERATION OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OR PERSONS-SUBSEQUENT GENERAL WORDS.-Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated; and words used in a statute are to be read in a natural and ordinary sense.

[4] ID.-EDUCATION-STATUTES-TAXATION. While it is the duty of courts in construing statutes enacted for the benefit of institu tions designed to promote education generally to indulge in reasonable liberality to the end that the evident purposes of such legislation may become effective, it is equally true that grants of exemption from taxation cannot be allowed unless the intention to do so is expressed in direct terms or is fairly inferable from the language of the instrument by which the right is claimed. [5] TAXATION CORRECTION OF ASSESSMENT-ROLL - SECTION 3881, POLITICAL CODE.-Under section 3881 of the Political Code, permitting the assessor to correct an assessment at any time after the assessment has been made and prior to the sale of the prop erty assessed for delinquent taxes, an assessment-roll erroneously

1. Exemption from taxation of educational institutions, notes, 1 Ann. Cas. 839; 10 Ann. Cas. 671; 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 164; L. R. A. 1917E, 1097.

showing a notation of tax exemption against the property of a university not wholly of collegiate grade was properly corrected, after application by the assessor with the consent of the district attorney to the board of supervisors and after the university filed its objections to the change, where the property of the university was listed and described and the valuation thereof entered on the assessment-roll and the rate of the tax levy had been established by the board of supervisors, and the carrying forward of the amount of tax was but a mere mathematical calculation and the amount of taxes assessed against the university was easily determinable by the application of the simple rule of mathematical computation.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. P. Wood, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Newby & Palmer for Appellant.

A. J. Hill, County Counsel, and Gordon Boller, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

SEAWELL, J.-This cause is before us after decision by the district court of appeal of the second district, division one. The appeal is from an order denying appellant relief from a property tax assessed against its property for the year 1919.

Appellant, an institution of learning, chartered or incorporated by virtue of the laws of this state, claims that it is an educational institution of collegiate grade and being such lays claim to those certain exemptions allowed by the provisions of article XIII, section la, of the constitution of this state.

It is also the claim of appellant that the county assessor of Los Angeles County, having entered upon the assessmentroll opposite the listing of appellant's property a notation, "Exemption allowed," had no authority thereafter to cancel said notation or entry and insert in lieu thereof "No exemption." This right involves an interpretation of section 3881 et seq. of the Political Code, which will hereafter receive attention.

The mandate of the constitution is that all property of the state except as otherwise in the constitution provided

and not exempt under the laws of the United States shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained by law. Article XIII, section 1a, under which exemption is claimed, provides: "Any educational institution of collegiate grade, within the State of California, not conducted for profit, shall hold exempt from taxation its buildings and equipment, its grounds within which its buildings are located, not exceeding one hundred acres in area, its securities and income used exclusively for the purposes of education.'

The decision of this case rests solely upon an interpretation of the language of the constitution. Section 3613, subdivision 2, of the Political Code was passed subsequent to the adoption of the constitutional amendment above set out and it can in no way limit or extend the exemption therein granted. Neither is there involved in this case a claim of exemption of an institution covering part of a collegiate course, nor claim of exemption for that part of the property of an educational institution exclusively devoted to an entire or partial collegiate course, where such institution also conducts other grades on other property.

Within the period of time to which our attention is directed, to wit, the first Monday in March, 1919, and for several months thereafter, the total number of enrolled students in attendance at appellant University was three hundred and four, of which number but thirty-seven had, before admission thereto, completed a four-year high school course or its equivalent. One hundred and seventeen pupils were enrolled in the academic department, the only requirements for admission thereto being the completion of the eighth grade course. Eighty-nine were in attendance upon the grammar grade department. Of the remaining sixtyone students two-thirds of them were taking work which required for admission not less than four years of high school work or its equivalent. Thus it will be seen that but a small fractional part of the student body was engaged in work of a collegiate grade. But it is not necessary to resort solely to the laws of ratio or relations to determine the legal status of appellant.

The language of the constitution seems clear and unambiguous as to meaning and intent and it is not at all necessary to read into it any other word or words to persuade us even against our inclination that appellant is not an

educational institution of collegiate grade and is, therefore, without the exemption provisions of the constitution.

Unquestionably, it was the intention of the electorate, as expressed in the language of the constitution, to exempt only educational institutions of collegiate grade. If it was not so the words of collegiate grade would have been omitted and the property of all educational institutions, both graded and mixed, if used exclusively for educational purposes and not for profit, would have come within the exemption. Had it been the intention to grant the exemption claimed undoubtedly appropriate and definite terms would have been selected to express the real purpose. It would not have been difficult to have said by the selection of words and the arrangement of sentences that the property of all educational institutions in which a collegiate grade is maintained or conducted shall be exempt from taxation. [1] As we read the language of the constitution exemption is granted to an institution of collegiate grade as a whole and not otherwise. Appellant University is made up or composed of a number of grades or groups of students ranking in classification below the grade defined as a collegiate grade. By far the largest number of enrolled students are not within the collegiate grade classification. [2] Appellant is not, therefore, and cannot be characterized as, an institution exclusively of any particular grade, but one of many grades.

We are not required to speak in defense of the policy of the law granting exemptions to an institution of collegiate grade exclusively and withholding its favors from institutions such as appellant. The fact, however, that free elemental, rudimentary, and grammar schools are quite universal throughout the state and the number of institutions of a collegiate grade offering training in technical knowledge and advanced branches of education are limited. in number and can be maintained only at a high cost to the educational bodies supporting them, may have been deemed a sufficient justification for the state to encourage by way of tax exemptions the establishment of such private institutions not conducted for profit and devoted exclusively to educational work of collegiate grade. The educational benefits accruing to the state by reason of the existence of such institutions may have been regarded as outbalancing any loss