The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-23
Supreme C0urt-Special Term.
Before Hon. Justice Mitchell.

Drc. 23-The Chemical Bank Us. The Mayor, DC
Neo YorkThe facts are fully stated in the opin,or
the learned Judge, as fol;ows:-The complaint sht
that the bank has surplus funds beyond its cap
amounting to more than $426, 900, Of which nea,l
$3.50 900 consist Of investments in the United Ste
stocks; that these facts duly established before
Commissioners Of Taxes and the Supervisors of n
county, but disregarded by them and that III
bank taxed the United States stocks as well
its other surplus funds. The complainant then asks
leave to pay the rest of the tax and that njunct
be granted to restrain the defendants from collecting
tax assessed the United States stocks. There can
need Of order Of the Court for the bank paw
tender such tax it admits to be DUE and if more
then unlawfuy collected the bank will have its remc
for that excess. The other remedy, BY injunction III
defendants counsel insist cannot be granted. Judl
opinion, ably explained the decisions ON this subject
Wilson Mayor New York; The case OF Messl|
role vs.. Brooklyn 20 wend 1872 }reyisng 5, Paige ls
ineston Hollenbeck, Bart, s. G. r. 10, Bout
rs. City Of Brooklyn, How. Pr. A. 19s fully sustain t
defendants counsel as the law stood before the ca
was adopted; and the last adopts the samerule
der the code Justice Strong, who decided the last
sums up his reasoning BY saying in substance, that
is committed of equity grants its preventive
lief before the usury is done but under certain limit
which exclude case like this and that court in wh
the functions OF both Joined Gas is the
der the code) cannot extend its power beyond what
formerly possessed by the court the other pre-
to the junction of the powers of both o
The code allows an injunction when il appears BY IL
complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
manded, and such relief, part Of it, consists in Il
straining the commission continuance of an act I'll
commission continuance of which during the litigI
ton would produce injury to the plaintiff (code 2l0)
Is not when the plaintiff is entitled to any relief but
the relief demanded If by the law it stood before til
plaintiff had right to the relief sought, in suit in hi
own name, he has none now, the section does nj
profess to extend the relief which the plaintiff mir
claim in such suit If the only final relief which NJ
demands is judgment for injunction, then he mul
show that by the law it stood before he was ent
to that relief If the code had allowed the injunctic
whenever the plaintiff entitled to any relief eth
in his own name relator in the name OF the People
then If mandamus or certiordyi would lie, the pr
liminary injunction might be allowable; but such is nc
the language II the plaintiff win have right Of actio
against the collector supervisor after the tax shall
collected, that does not ente him to the injunction
in that case his Of action will not accrue until tn
money shall be collected. At the time IL is ev
dent that there could be simpler mode of settling
questions than by an action for an injunction.
brings up the precise merits Of the applicable
the individual aggrieved alone, and does not involve
the suit the other tax payers il Is subject to the equs
bic control of the Court, and in that has great
vantage over action brought for trespass when 4
some cases the whole assessment might be declared void
and he who was liable to pay part be discharged fro<
paying anything, account Of an informalty in tn
proceedings But the strict law favor the oh
lection made by the defendants and the motion for a.
Injunction is denied without costs