We are, stood, without any guaranty whatsoever. however, disposed to do what is fair and right." The vendor thereafter made efforts to render the automobiles satisfactory to the defendant, and wrote him frequently, assuring him of continued attention to the matter and eventual adjustment of the difficulty, and requesting him to continue performance on his part. But the defects were not corrected, and defendant finally refused any further shipments of lumber. On the trial the defendant attempted to put in evidence so much of the conversation accompanying the placing and acceptance of the order as tended to show what was meant by the second clause quoted above from the order. He contended that the clause meant only that no accessories went with the cars; that it neither was intended to, nor did, negative an implied warranty that the cars were reasonably fit for the use. intended. He also took the position that this clause was ambiguous, and that the situation called for parol evidence of its true meaning in the minds of the parties. All such evidence was rejected by the court. The court also ruled out evidence of the vendor's conduct and letters after the making of the contract, offered for the same purpose. He then directed a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,430.69, and entered judgment upon it. These rulings of the court are assigned as errors. A discussion of the parol evidence rule and the doctrine of implied warranty, as applied to the facts in this case, is unnecessary. Strong and explicit language was used in the clauses above quoted to confine the agreement to the written words. A substantially similar provision in the contract involved in Union Trust Co. v. Transit Co., 162 Mich. 670 (127 N. W. 780), was held to forbid the implication of a warranty, and the exclusion of testimony offered to explain the terms used was approved. We are of the opinion that the situation here presented is clearly ruled by the case just referred to, and the judgment of the lower court must be, and therefore is, hereby affirmed. STONE, C. J., and OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, BROOKE, and PERSON, JJ., concurred. CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY CO. 1. TAXATION-CERTIFICATE OF ASSESSOR-SAULT STE. MARIE CHAR TER. A certificate of the city assessor annexed to the assess- 2. SAME-INDORSEMENT-REQUIREMENTS. It was also correct without a statement that the tax equaled the amount of cost, as by the charters in certain cases required. Under a charter providing that at any time after a special assessment had become payable it might be collected by suit in an action of assumpsit (Act No. 533, Local Acts 1887), the appellant had no ground for complaining that the lower court excluded evidence as to whether or not a return had been made of the defendant's land as delinquent. 192 Mich.-5. 4. SAME-EVIDENCE-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT-BENEFITS. Testimony of the tax assessor who succeeded in office to the assessor that levied the assessment that it was made according to frontage instead of benefits was mere opinion, not entitled to be received, and objectionable as hearsay. Error to Chippewa; O'Brien, J., presiding. Submitted April 17, 1916. (Docket No. 69.) Decided June 1, 1916. Assumpsit by the city of Sault Ste. Marie against the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company for a special sewer tax. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. E. S. B. Sutton (J. L. Erdall, of counsel), for appellant. F. T. McDonald (Herbert W. Runnels, of counsel), for appellee. KUHN, J. A statement of the history of the tax involved in this controversy may be found in the opinion of this court reported in 184 Mich. 681 (151 N. W. 649), when the case was here before. The plea in abatement having been overruled, the case was tried upon its merits before the court without a jury. The trial judge filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a judgment was entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $592.96. The defendant appeals. A considerable part of the brief of counsel for the defendant is taken up with a discussion of the questions involved in the previous appeal. No application for a rehearing of that decision was made by counsel, and we must now decline to consider them again, as the questions were definitely settled adversely to the contentions of the defendant. The opinion of this court became the law of the case, which the trial court rightly followed. The validity of the proceedings are, however, again attacked on the ground that the proper certificates were not attached to the tax roll, as required by the provisions of the plaintiff's charter (being section 6 of chapter 21, Act No. 418, Local Acts 1903), which are: "After the said board of review shall have reviewed and approved said assessment roll, the assessor shall indorse thereon the words 'Local Tax Roll as approved by the board of review.'" * ** ** The record shows that the following certificates were attached to the roll: "STATE OF MICHIGAN, "County of Chippewa SS.: "I hereby certify that the foregoing special assessment roll was made by me according to benefits, and made in accordance with a resolution adopted by the common council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, at a regular meeting thereof on the 12th day of July, 1909. "Dated April 29, 1910. "E. S. ROYCE, City Assessor. "We the undersigned members of the board of review, duly appointed by the common council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, at a regular meeting thereof, on the 9th day of May, 1910, for the purpose of reviewing the foregoing special assessment roll; hereby certify, that we have reviewed the said roll, as assessed by the city assessor, and that assessments therein fixed by us are according to benefits; and in accordance with a resolution passed by the common council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, on the 12th day of July, 1909. "Dated May 31, 1910. "JOHN METZGER, "E. S. ROYCE, "Board of Review. "Local Tax Roll No. 60-R. "Meridian street sewer system as approved by the board of review, constituted for the review of said roll the 31st day of May, A. D. 1910. "E. S. ROYCE, City Assessor. "Received the above roll the 1st day of June, A. D. 1910. "F. L. EVERLING, City Comptroller." It is the claim of counsel that these certificates do not show that the board of review actually approved the rolls. But we find no merit in this contention, as the roll contains the certificate required by law, viz., that of the assessor, that the roll was approved by the board of review. But, even if it were necessary, the certificate of the board of review, while it does not use the word "approved," cannot be read or construed in any other way than as an approval of the roll. It is next contended that there should be a specific indorsement that the tax only equals the amount of the cost of the improvement, and in support thereof the case of Adams v. City of Bay City, 78 Mich. 215 (44 N. W. 138), is principally relied upon. There is no requirement in the plaintiff's charter requiring the specific indorsement urged as necessary. In the previous opinion of this court, we said: "The proceedings to assess the defendant's property in the instant case were in accordance with the requirements of the plaintiff's charter." The trial court specifically so found upon the trial from which the present appeal is taken, and we find support in this record for his conclusions. In the Adams Case the comptroller was charged by the charter provision with the duty of fixing the district and determining the benefits, and was required to assess the property which he should determine would be specifically benefited by the construction of the sewer. He was charged with certain charter duties, which in the case at bar are required to be performed by the council. As to the performance of these acts he made no record or certificate, and the court said: |