The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-23

pssgedS - ~Rfant oflaw. constitutss such ceul-
P1ldsn &seohs money paid for its relief may
: bercOevered back.
In Re Coutenix W.. Supervisors Of Erie, z
Barb, 80, acti0n was brought 70 recover back
money paid upon IN alleged illegal sssessment
for perscnAl estate. and no question wns made
Of the liability Of the defendants II the tax was
Illegal, th0ukA the case was decided In their ia
vor b sustaining the legality OF the tax
And In the Mutual Insurance Company Of
b fhl0 VS.. tie Supervisors Of Erie 4COmstook.,
Az, The aoti0n was the same and was decided
upon the came ground. No doubt was suggest
ed but that the action would lie; and Gardiner,
j., says:-"The only question In this cause IL
WHISTLER the appellant. az corporation, Is sub
ject to taxation according to the laws Of this
State" "a
This protracted review Of the subject. think.
sufficiently shows that the plaintiff in this case
is not without remedy at law, and that in some
or one Of the modes indicated he can obtain re-
dress, or could have had remedy adequate to
his protection.
There can be no pretence of irreparable mis-
chief-the proceeding can only take GER
tain number Of dollars from his pocket, or,
at the worst, personal property OF . definite as
certainahle value, and in presumption of law
and Of equity also, like sum win be full
compensation to him.
The apprehended insolvency Of Jenkins and
Hart above alluded to furnishes no ground for
equitable interference, for the reason above sug-
And IL is not claimed that any real estate is
affected by the acts Of the defendant, the title
to which Is effected or obscured.
l cannot, therefore, perceive any ground for
The interference of Q curt of equity as such.
Nor that there Is o case here which can be
classed under any head Of equity jurisdiction.
And although there are cases in which jurisdic-
ton in equity has in this State been entertain
ed, 60 that there is not here perfect consistency
in this report ct the current of the decisions is,
I think, clearly against the relief which the
plaintiff here seeks
In Mooers W. Smediey, (6 John, Oh. R., p.
2s). Chancellor KenL refused to enjoin the col
lection of an alleged illegal assessment
Whether the illegality appeared upon the
face of the proceedings or not, does not distinct
~ appear but the alleged error consisting in
the allowance of improper town charges, he
supervisors to review their determination, whe
ther legal or lot, ana declares the superintend-
ing control TO be in a court Of law, herein above
cited.
In Thompson vs.. Ebbetts ct al, Il Hopk., K.
212), where the comp'ai' ant was assessed in two
places, he was permitted to interplead the
two collectors If the taxes an leave them to
contest the legality of their respective claims to
the tax on his personal estate upon the question
of residence. But no 0becuon was raised to
the jurisdiction and the action was entertained
simply as an interp,eading suit
In the Mohawk AID Hudson River Railroad
Company VS. Clute and others, "a Paige, 384)
where also the complainant had been taxed in
Two places, the bill rs simpler bill Of inter-
pleader was regarded a. detective in form and
insufficient on the merits. The Chancellor,
however, entertained it for the purposes of an
Injunction as to one of the defendants whose as
Eessment was illegal. But no objection to his
jurisdiction was made, aid the subsequent deci-
sions of the Chancellor show that il he consd-
cred the question Of jurisdiction at all, he must
have retained the cause upon some ground pc
culiar to the case Of . complainant taxed in two
towns on the same properly.
For in the Bank OF Utica vs. city of Utica
(sec. 8, 399), the Chancellor distinctly stating
that the complaioants have perfect remedy at
law, finds himself bound to take jurisdiction
because the parties had stipulated to waive the
objection, and thereupon he enjoined the defend
ants to prevent the collection Of an illegal tax.
In Wiggin We. the May or. &C., OF New York,
g Paige, ICY, the Chancellor held that he would
not restrain the collection of an assessment for
opening street, to correct an error in the esti-
mate OF damages. Nor If the proceedings were
void on their face, would he interfere on the
claim that the proceedings created an apparent
lien on the real estate assessed therefor, and q
cloud on the title.
And having in 1s4O-in Meserole VS.. Mayor
&c. Of Brooklyn, e Paige, R. 1887, enjoined the
defendants against the collection Of an assess
ment for street. on the ground that the open
itg was without authority, placing his interfer-
ence, however, und.r an admitted head Of
equity jurisdiction the removal Of cloud upon
the defendants title to real estate, the Court
of Errors reversed his decision (26 Wend., 1922,
denying to the Court Of Chancery jurisdiction
over the proceedings for laying out Of streets
for the purpose Of reviewing them or setting
l. - AZ. vscl: nAs
appertaips exclusively to the Supreme Court,
(then court Of law only admitting, however.
Oftwo exceptions, |. Q. where irreparable injury
or multiplicity Of suits will follow, beyond the
power of courts of law to redress.
In the Farmers Loan and Trust Company vs.
the Mayo or. de-, q Hill, 26l,) on appeal from
the Chancellor, a bill to restrain the collection
OF tax on personal property, alleged to be IL
legal. was entertained, on the distinct ground
that the parties having stipulated to waive oil
objections to the jurisdiction, the Court o.
Chancery was mot at liberty to decline the
consideration of question which appropriately
, belongs 10 courts OF law"
In Van Doren vs. the Mayor, &C., % Paige
$685. the Chancellor expresses his concurrence
in the reversal Of Meserole VS.. Brooklyn, GA
Wend Supre,) but rrests jurisdiction, whereby
by reason Of matters not appearing upon the
face of the proceedings, an assessment for q
street was illegal but, in such case only where
cloud upon the title to real estate was created
by the assessment. Getty Simpson vs.. Lord
Howdcn, 9 Mey her 4 Craig, s7.)
In the Utica Manufacturing Company vs. the
Supervisors of Oneida county, U Barb, Oh
X. 1927 an appeal from decretal order over.
ruling demurrer to the bill, filed to restrain
the collection of an illegal tax, the Chancellor
affirmed the order; but he says expressly thai
no such question being raised by defendant
counsel. he has not considered whether it is o
proper case Of equity cognisance, or whether
The complainant had perfect remedy at law
ty mandamus, to compel the defendants to
strike the name Of the complainant from the
assessment roll
In Livingston We. Hollenbeck, a Barb, Sup
CT, X. 10,) the Superior Court in Equity hold
distinctly on a bill fled TO restrain the collec-