Liability to pay taxes and assessments may be quasi-contract, but is not genuine contract. This clause does not therefore make invalid statutes which tax pre-existing contract rights.1 So a statute requiring lessees to pay the tax on the property leased and to deduct it from the rent is valid.2 The imposition of a specific tax,3 such as a license,4 or a privilege tax,5 is not an implied contract that such tax will not be increased. Remedies for collecting taxes due and unpaid,6 or on property unlawfully omitted from the assessment,7 or for enforcing assessments for improvements made theretofore,8 may be changed after the tax or assessment is levied. So a statute may provide- that the auditor shall place on the duplicate, taxes omitted before the passage of the act,9 or may change the penalty for delinquencies.10 This, rule is not especially applicable to taxes, since remedies for express contracts may be changed.11 A statute appropriating fines and forfeitures to the use of public corporations,12 or to the use of informers,18 is not a contract, and may be repealed by subsequent statute. So a statute offering a bounty may be repealed even as to persons who have expended money for the purpose of earning such bounty.14

15 Gilman v. Tucker, 128 N. Y. 190; 26 Am. St. Rep. 464; 13 L. R. A. 304; 28 N. E. 1040.

16 Livingston v. Livingston, 173 N. Y. 377; 93 Am. St. Rep. 600; 61 L. R. A. 800; 66 N. E. 123.

1 Southern, etc., Association v. Norman, 98 Ky. 294; 56 Am. St. Rep. 367; 31 L. R. A. 41; 32 S. W. 952; Commonwealth v. Ry., 150 Pa. St. 234; 24 Atl. 609; Commonwealth v. Canal Co., 150 Pa. St. 245; 24 Atl. 599; Commonwealth v. Ry., 129 Pa. St. 429, 454; 18 Atl. 406, 410.

2 Vermont, etc., Ry. v. Ry., 63 Vt. 1, 29; 10 L. R. A. 562; 21 Atl. 262, 731.

3 Adams v. Railroad Co., 77 Miss. 194; 60 L. R. A. 33; 24 So. 200, 317; 28 So. 956.

4 Bishoff v. State, 43 Fla. 67; 30

So. 808; Baker v. Lexington (Ky.), 53 S. W. 16; State v. Gazlay, 5 Ohio 15. But a statute requiring a new license has been held invalid. Wright v. Atlanta, 54 Ga. 645.

5 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Harris (Tenn. Ch. App.), 52 S. W. 748.

6 Flock v. Smith. 65 N. J. L. 224; 47 Atl. 442; Willis v. Heigh-way, 40 S. C. 476; 19 S. E. 135.

7 State v. Weyerhauser, 72 Minn. 519; 75 N. W. 718.

8 Hall v. Boston, 177 Mass. 434; 59 N. E. 68.

9 Gager v. Prout. 48 O. S. 89; 26 N. E. 1013.

10 Webster v. Auditor General, 121 Mich. 668; 80 N. W. 705.

11 See-Sec. 1766.