The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1859-10-15
Collection Of Taxcs---i supreme Court
Eeci>.n:..

The JUti yes of the supreme Court, who
recently met in chambers at this city, filed
their opinion = the case Of the CLirego d.
Bri,r.rr z Il C.. ". Fray collector Of
Bureau County. ana as the opinion settles
some interesting points in reference to the
collection. Q: taxes, we give It's substance.
the facts @: the case are ike this. The
town assessors Of Bureau county had as
sessei the property OF the railroad compa-
~ in that COUNTY al 4 certain sum. Tie
board Of supervisors, in e4uaiizing the as
ses-meu,S Q. the different towns, added 20
per cent. 10 that Of the railroad company.
IL making this addition the company al
lece tina: certain i!reculmi.ies had been
committed and when called upon TO pay
their taxes, rendered an amount based on
the assessment before il had been raised
or s.aL-,{ 10y the board Of supervisors
The county treasurer refused 10 receive
such -,.,n, and proceeded to levy on the
property Of the Company. The proceed
iu"s Of the treasurer were arrested 10y a
temporary injunction granted by Justice
Cation The Bureau Circuit Court dissClv-
e the injunction: whence il was appealed
- the Supreme Court. and argued AZ the
La. April term, Glover Il Cook for the
Railroad Company, and Wallace for ap,
peilec.
Opinion ~ Cation, Chief Justice. The
substance Of it i, that although there nay
have been IRE. u.ar.tics IN the assessment
anu levy Q: this tax, the Court. Is 4 Couut
o. Chancery, VIII not Interfere. The al
rcilaut has his remedy AT law, and may
sue the collector and recover, if such IRE
gulaIltieS exist The Count in inyesti@at.
ing numerous cases OF rllis kind, have III
nearly every case found irregularities i'll
the assessment, levy, &c, to such an cX-
tent a. 10 yitiatc the titles to real estate
acquired by tax sales. Yet. if the Court
would III all such cases restrain the coiiec-
ton Of taxes 10y injunction, our govern,
Inent could not exist Tor a year-a food o!
iujunctiouS would soon be spread over the
land. the State and county revenue would
cease to be collected, and the wheels Of
gogernment inust.stop. The Court say il
conclusion:
II We permit the Injunction to be uset
where the tax i authorized by law. ano
tae thing taxed i liable to that tax, there
is 10 storp!n" point short Of injoining al
taxes. whenever any irrcgularity has inter
venod. This power the Court OF Chancerl
has never assumed. nor could II without
the most disastrous consequences To tn,
State There may he eases. the particular
c.rcumstaCc or peculiar hardship o
which Will justify AN exception TO this &c
neral rule. This J. not one
We have examined the ALLEGED irregu
laritie> in the levy Of this tax, and are b,
no means prepared TO say that they can To-
sustained anywhere. Indeed, we think
satisfactory answer TO all these objection
possible, but We choose 10 place our dec
sion upon the broad ground OF Jurisdiction
that all may distinctly know when tn
Court o.. Chancery Will and when 1t viii
not Interfere 10 enjoin the collector OF tn
public revenue, or at least that they ma
know what the general rule on this sui
Iect is. We affirm the decree.