The errors assigned and discussed in the brief of counsel for appellants in this case are identical with those in Brooks v. State, ex rel., ante, 568. The only matter in controversy is the validity of the apportionment act of March 9, 1903.

*696On the authority of Brooks v. State, ex. rel., supra, and without any intimation concerning the form of the action, the party plaintiff, or the relief sought, we hold that the said act is unconstitutional, and the judgment is affirmed.