Case ID: abb-ct-app_3/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Leonard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. SUPERVISORS OF NEW YORK.
    December, 1866.
    
      Affirming8Bosw. 683; also 33 Barb. 322 ; S. 0., 20 How. Pr. 416.
    
    An action for an injunction will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax upon an illegal assessment, where there is a remedy to review and correct the assessment by certiorari, or to strike it from the roll by mandamus.
      
    
    The plaintiffs brought two actions against the board of supervisors of the city and county of New York, one in the New York superior court, and the other in the supreme court. The object of the actions was to enjoin the defendants from collecting a tax on the plaintiffs in respect to the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, which they had lodged with the comptroller of the State of New York, in securities, pursuant to the insurance law, as a condition of their doing business in this State.
    
      The superior and supreme courts gave judgment for defendants in each case, dismissing the complaint, with costs, and these judgments were affirmed respectively on appeals taken to the general term in each court. The plaintiffs appealed to this court.
    
      A. C. Bradley, for plaintiffs, appellants;
    Cited L. 1853, p. 893, §§ 15, 6,17; International Life Ass. Co. v. Com. Taxes, 28 Barb. 318; S. C., 17 How. Pr. 206 ; British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. The Same, 28 Id. 41;
      Statute 1849, p. 441, § 7; Act 1853, §§ 14,15; People v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 303; Code, §§ 372, 114, 148; People v. Works, 7 Wend. 486 ; People v. Tompkins, G. S., 19 Id. 154; Exp. Braudlacht, 2 Hill, 367; People v. Seward, 7 Wend. 518; Exp. Gordon, 2 Hill, 363; People v. Supervisors, 1 Id. 195; Code, 
      §§ 129,142, subd. 3, 246, subd. 2, 278, 275; Yoorhies’ Code, note to same section; Code, §§ 248, 252, 144, 149, 269, 246; Cowenhoven v. City of Brooklyn, 38 Barb. 9; N. Y. Ice Co. v. N. Western Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 357; Wright v. Hooker, 10 Id. 51; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 Id. 607; Barlow v. Scott, Id. 40; Redmond v. Dana, 3 Bosw. 616; Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. (4 Kern.) 534.
    
      R. O’Gorman, counsel to corporation.
    
      A. R. Lawrence, Jr., for defendants, respondents;
    Cited N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 4 Duer, 192; Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. (4 Kern.) 534, 541; Wilson v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Abb. Pr. 4; S. C., 4 E. D. Smith, 675; Chemical Bank v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 1 Id. 79; Mooers v. Smedley, 6 Johns. Ch. 28; Mayor, &c. of Brooklyn v. Meserole, 26 Wend. 132; Wiggin v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 9 Paige, 16, 24; Van Doren v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., Id. 388; Livingston v. Hollenbeck, 4 Barb. 9, 16 ; S. C., 3 How. Pr. 343; Van Rensselaer v. Kidd, Id. 17; Bouton v. Brooklyn, 7 How. Pr. 205 ; Douglas v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 2 Liter, 110 ; Mut. Benefit, &o. Ins. Co. v. Supervisors of N. Y., 33 Barb. 322; S. C., 20 How. Pr. 416; Same v. Same, 8 Bosw. 683;* Storm v. Odell, 2 Wend. 287; Caledonian Co. v. Trustees, &c., 7 Id. 508; People v. Mayor, Sc. of Brooklyn, 9 Barb. 535 ; People v. Works, 7 Wend. 486; People v. Albany, 12 Johns. 414; Exp. Nelson, 1 Cow. 417; Hull v. Oneida, 19 Johns. 260; Bright v. Chenango, 18 Id. 242; People v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 10 Wend. 393; Bank of Utica v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 400; People v. N. Y., 18 Wend. 605; People v. Watertown, 1 Hill, 616; People v. Niagara, 4 Id. 20; Adriance v. Supervisors of N. Y., 12 How. Pr. 224; Mygatt v. Wash-burn, 15 N. Y. 316; Saunders v. Springsteen, 4 Wend. 429; Ontario Bank v. Bunnell, 10 Id. 186; Weaver v.
    
    
      Devendorf, 3 Den. 117 ; Prosser v. Secor, 5 Bari. 607 ; People v. Supervisors of Chenango, 11 N. Y. (1 Kern.) 563 ; L. 1855, p. 44; International Life Ass. Co. v. Com. Taxes, 28 Bari. 318; S. C., 17 How. Pr. 206; British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Com. Taxes, 28 Id. 41; S. C., 18 All. Pr. 118; more fully, 1 Keyes, 303; L. 1853, p. 892, 893, §§ 14, 15.
    
      
      
         Compare Howell v. City of Buffalo, vol. 2 of this series, p. 412; and Lathrop v. The Same, 8 Id. p. 80, and cases cited,
    
    
      
       See report in vol. 1, p. 199 of this series.
    
    
      
      
         Overruled, as to prohibition, in Hill, 195.
    
    
      
       Affirmed in 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 333; S. C.,3 Keyes, 183; 33 How. Pr. 359.
    
    
      
       Overruled, in 7 N. Y. (3 Sell) 314.
    
    
      
       Affirmed, in 7 Id. 504.
    
    
      
      
         Followed, in 12 Bazrb. 508.
    
    
      
       Overruled, in 24 Id. 419.
    
   By the Court.

Leonard, J.

The question presented in this case has been passed upon by this court adversely to the plaintiffs. Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 537. Assume, as the complaint alleges, that the assessment is illegal, the plaintiffs have, or had, at least, two complete remedies at law. The assessment might have been reviewed and corrected by certiorari, or have been stricken from the roll by mandamus. These remedies are adequate for the plaintiffs’ relief, as there is abundant authority to show, cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. Where there are such remedies fully adequate, the aid of a court oí equity cannot be invoiced.

The case principally relied on by the counsel for the appellants to maintain these actions was decided in 1863, since the judgment was rendered in the courts below, and is reported in 26 N. Y. 303; People v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co. That case was submitted on a statement of facts agreed on by the respective parties under section 372 of the Code. In the court below the tax was held to be legal, and judgment was rendered against the company for the recovery of the amount. Upon an appeal to this court, that judgment was reversed, and the assessment held to be illegal. No objection was raised to the determination of the question. On the contrary, both parties asked the determination of the legality of the tax. In the cause at bar the objection is specifically raised, based upon the decisions of this court, that a court of equity will not take cognizance or grant equitable relief by injunction where full relief can be obtained at law. The appellants cannot be aided by the decision in 26 N. Y., without overturning prior authority in this court in no respect inconsistent with that decision.

It has been held by the court that the act of 1853 {Sess. L. ch. 463), for the incorporation of life insurance companies, and in relation to the agencies of foreign companies, repeals so much of chapter 51 of Laws of 1851 as required the deposit by foreign companies of one hundred thousand dollars with the comptroller; but it is unnecessary to go into the merits of this question, inasmuch as it appears from the decisions that no relief can be administered in equity where the remedies at law are adequate for the attainment of justice.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

All the judges concurred.

Judgments affirmed, with costs.