Russell, C. J.
1. In tlie liglit of the provisions of section 2052 of the Civil Code of 1910, defining industrial life insurance, and the terms of section 2507, providing that the business of industrial life insurance shall not be affected by any legislation unless such insurance is expressly referred to, the act of 1923 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1923, p. 40) ehn not be properly construed to include industrial insurance agents. Consequently the petitioners in this ease were not subject to the special taxes sought to be collected, and the court erred in refusing air injunction.
2. The above ruling controls the decision in this case. The constitutional question, under a well-settled rule, will not be passed upon, because not necessary to the adjudication.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
In his answer to the rule nisi the defendant admits the residence of the petitioners, but can neither admit nor deny the allegations of the petition as to the occupation of the petitioners or the class of insurance companies they represent. He charges on information and belief that they are “superintendents and/or managers and/or agents of insurance companies in this State, and as such have been doing business during the year 1925 in said county and State.” He admits that he sent petitioners notices calling their attention to their unpaid and overdue special tax of $50 due as manager or general insurance agent as the" case may be, and to the per cent, penalty to be paid after a named date. The defendant “denies that he has threatened or is threatening to issue executions against each of the plaintiffs as alleged. He avers upon information and belief that each of said plaintiffs is subject to a special or occupationaltax for the year 1925 for the vocation which each of them pursues, and that it is his duty as such tax-collector to collect said taxes from said plaintiffs.” The trial judge refused an injunction, and the petitioners excepted.
Charles Q. Edwards and Bouhan & Atlcinson, for plaintiffs.
George T. Gann, for defendant.