The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-05-20
The Collins Steamers.
SUPREME CoURr-CuAMBKRs.
nofora Hon Iuhao Innranaun


NAT l9.-Dudtey u. Hdler a9ainst H. W. Allen and
ohs-The plsniin restrain defendants from
evyDg warrant 10 collect persona tax from property
his possession and which he claims belong 70 him.
The against the New York and Liverpool United
States Mai steamship Company for tho years 1866 and
sry, 1885, BY the Receiver OF Taxes, TO Hycr.
made . levy on the steamer AtAatc. On the 18th Of
January previously the Sheriff had levied execution
against the company on the steamship and on the
1.t DAY Of April the ship was sold by the Sheriff 70 the
plaintiff
proceed against the vessel for the collection OF the
and threatens 10 hererom sufficient 70 satisfy the
same.
There are some points necessary TO be settled in order
properly TO dispose OF the case.
First. The sae by the Sheriff to the psIutG related
back the date Of the levy and conveyed 70 tho plaintiff
all the title 10 the o2ery which tho shcrh obtained the
day he made the levy on the vessel lScc Butter and
others Maynard and others IL Wend, Gas, where
held that under the Revised Statutes levy por
property defeated subsequent purchase though
iona de and for valuable confederation SEQ also Birds
Second faxes upon personal property are not lien
upon specific property a. 70 prevent sale 70 bona
Gde purchaser until levy actually made for tho col
lection Of such tax and then the lien exists only upon the
property levied on. preston vs. City OF Boston IL cky
In williams vs. Holden, wond D. 223 Justice Suther.
land says Taxes upon personal property are never I'm
posed specifically upon the property itself, NJ they are
ydual In respect the property who In fact udg
mcnt OF law has the possession or control OF IT,"
Third Even the time OF delivery OF the warrant 10
The officer, and not the day OF tho levy was the date
from which the len the property accrued still the
levy having been made previous thereto under the ex
ecuton IL would avail the defendants In this Gaze
Fourth The 10 tho Receiver OF Taxes collect
the did authorize him TO mako levy. Thc stat
ing warrant 70 an officer &c tni such warrant IL de-
vcrcd to the officer there be lien for such tar
personal property Of the party assessed
Fifth From these conclusions II will be apparent that
cvying the tar gAnst the company the officer could
not thereby defeat previous lovy male by the Sheriff
property. Tue procces first issued and LEVIED
obtained priority and the sale under such process
veycd to the purchaser the title 10 tho property 70 the
same extent the sheriff could have gfvcn tito on the
day he made the levy. band fde purchaser Of the
property would therefore obtain rse 70 the property
free from any lien for tax due by the company.
Two questions remain 10 be examined: One, whether
the plaintiff h entitled 10 the rights bona Ede
purchaser and second, whether he s an injuncuoo
Upon the first question there can be no doubt that the
levy upon thu furniture and fixtures Of the Baltic and
Adratic void, and gave no lien thereon Such levy
the sale Of these vessels had been made 10 the plaintiff
The announcement had lion these vessels for
the tar time Of the sale amounted n nothing, he
had then made no levy vessels but had actually
levied the other steamer, and had ample property, "
the levy valid, 70 pay the debt But notice OF such
lien nothing, n In fact lien existed And n the
levy OF the sher entitled priority the notice OF the
occr having the distress warrant did not Affect tho pur
chaser diminish the title which The Sheriff had thereby
The point UPON which have hesitsted whether the
plaintiff Is entitled 70 the remedy BY injunction.
The csse of Wilson Vs. The Mayor, NC, the Common
Pleas which has been cencurred in by the Superior Court
by decisions OF Judges in this court establish think
copcusivey that injunction should not be issued TO
restrain collector OF from collecting the taxes
imposed by proper authority both account Of the i'm
property OF thus interfering with the public authorities
preventing them from providing the necessary means
for the government Of the city and because the pant
n injured, has other means OF redress.
the present case however, the application II not 10
restrain the collection OF the tar The plaintiff asks that
properly which he has purchased may not be taken TO
raw the OF another. He does not seek 70 interfere
with the officer in any other which he may see
az take any property Of tbs party assessed and
in this respect does not within the provisions re-
referred 10.
That the plaintiff has ample remedy by seton for
the trespas upon his property would be clear the party
committing responsible. But ~ other perscn
than the officer would be responsible for such respass
seems be unsatisfactory answer 10 an applicat on
for relief turn the party seeking over 70 an acton
against individual who not responsible for any dam.
| ages which might be recovered against him
In this case, also, appears that the ofcer proposes 70
do serious injury 10 the plaintiffs property ~ removing
from all the vessels furnure which fitted 70 them, and
which M would be OF much less value than N the
place where such furniture now placed and the loss 70
the plaintiff would be greater than could be compensated
for BY recovery Of the ordnvry value OF the property
have therefore but with much hesitation, como ~
the conclusion grsn the motion for An uuuctcn 40 Tar
70 restrain the defendants from removing or selling any
OF the property In either OF tho vessels purcnsscd Thu
plaintiff bot without, 10 any Way restraining hira from
taking my other messurcs he may see ~ 70 cocct socl
i tsv~e
I l,s osi.a.soss .cc,,a now,v~r b, falIy .Ac..c-. "A