New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-09-20
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
u. 4. Supreme Court-An Important De-
cisi0n.

.training the collection OF Government tax on GER
tain stock sales-he collection Of which Judge N. had
previously decided to be illega)-an', he denies tbe
motion for reasons set forth in the fo' wing opnic
Robert H. Cutting and others agt Sylvester p Gbe. and
Sheridan shook-Sept T. 1868. Bin for au Ip'anetion
cy Of New licensed doing bros and
under the internal MsI, ReyeTss Act Of snTs bs
Asa"sor and s. p shook Collector ofve sd Collection
District in laid city Te 10, n so !, and be- sd pa
s thereto and contribute to the eS OF the yoceedng
ton whether or not brokers' and bankers doing business. as
brokers' who have bought end SOL stoes bon and o,ner
a % IN sud for others or on
mission properly chssess. with the tax pre- hos ~
not The defendants ms1 be enoned fom assessing
The act OF 1864 provides e production Of list of prop
ery chargeabe with tax by the taxpayer and confer:
power upon to alter and amend ae same ana
the expiration Of the time for bearing appeals Ie MAKE
% y the iSsG for
which ss .h. contain tine name of each person residing
the collectors OF the several collection districts within ten
days &c. certified copy Of such lists for their collection
The 2sth provides for the collection o. the tax ny the
Tie bin IS we already said filed stay the assess
ment and collection Of the by these officers claimed under
N. Goth secion for stocks bonds &C. sold by the complain
ants for themselves and on their own account; o,.,
upon opinion their liability to this aa we should
feel bound grant at for, although we appreciate the
|
give construction 10 the various provisions OF the act of 1854
and the dmen Of 1905 and In recognizing and
able 10 dive te subject have the conclusion that
the complainant. not ,blc But other considerations
This bin Of to quiet the rights Of parties and to
The bill is foupded upon the idea that all the persons in
business brokers' bankers doing business as brokers'
charged with the tax in question have such unity nder
o. ntees, in ccne.,ng all may join in the bill for tia,
purpose and the parties are 50 numerous Is to naAe IN
tho them selves and FOR the rest we nave
able TO concur in THIS view. ~, ,u 4,
conn aint or which Will enable the Court to dispense with
the presence Of all the parties e1eepta deisrmiae aunef
the subject matter of the suit 'uch in the case
OF disputes between the lord Of and bis tenants OF
betwoen the tenants of one manor aud anoth,I OF "e
several tenants OF manor claim the prohts OF af OF IN
suit settle general be paid by all the copy hold
tenants Of manor In order to prevent the mutPney OF
1its In al these and the Ike instances given IN the books
and condition Of the right dispute for although there may
not be prsity between the numerous Pie IHeie Sb,
! lies o. the foundation - the pIoceedinss San
There analogous cases also where this b may be MED
or franchise which conrcvertcd by persons as
In the case Of corporation Of YORK claiming exclusive
sht wa, contested by deren, lords Of and persons
tine b.ns Of the river the g ton would have
The principle found in the Of the city Of London
ugn Pekai to establish duy OF tax against certain deaf
rcntcharse agans, the ter tenants Of the land
the eSgpsn.u,s or. between them and the defend,.
Interest in the question involved which alone cannot lay
foundation ior me Jo'ndcf o. pl~ insae ~ eia.
principle 20 given state Of cts, ofin which general statute
i Interpreted. but wat involves question III wheh one
rarie interested Instance the doctrine o trusts the
# dcecai. Of frauds. Of wills, aud the ke yet no
lawyer would conieaG that such an interest wonu yay
law Of trusts under either OF the statutes men
The same may be said Of questions arising under the
laws ;seh 2. tara and excise laws. end which are u.
OF persons. than parties to the suit are Interested IN the
questions involved and determined 10 alto" these To Dc
made parties would confound the established order
ofdc proceeding aud lead to endless peTpe1y and con
We are satisfied therefore that this bill be
tanned account, the onder Of improper parties as com
a. this may be corrected and there other
cases before in which does not exist, wcsha proceed to
1hese are which thu bill is filed by the party firm
We DO not doubt the jurisdiction or power Of the Cour,
interfere and peyen, the threatened imposition OF the tax, II
ille,sl. go,
Tie "a section Of the Of Congress Of March p 1889
known the force act, confes jurisdiction in express
terms and which ha- been applied to this act by its h sec
ton And jurisdiction had previously and has since been
upheld and eSrIcised upon seeh p"nepss 81 equity lu
s gsi1'"''' - W" '''' w. ~ INV '''
erci'e Of the sound discretion Of the Court Where The
remedy ct hw Is adequse i Is always refused II will be
granted prevent multiplicity Of suits and veSaous hiisa
ton where the right has established law. And where
night l. plain, and the remedy, at law, not adequate
Although IL denied the argument by the learned
counsel that the under the internal revenue law
mistake The position may be true as respects the CO. ect
regard the LIABILITY Of the assessor rs settled law
IN al. gal assessment; by which mean an assess
properly OF business not liable to the tax ms
naked where the property business Il disturbed
7 by prctensc OF tie authority. -
Eyen court OF special and limited jurdiciioo i liable, in
cases where M powers carried bey ond it. urisdcon
We aee, however that tho remedy at law in this case
sdequae and that for this IN ordinary eases the
party would entitled relief in equity The main
this remedy law adequate Is the multiplicity OF
suite The want OF responsibility OF the officers we do not re
gard material controlling for the reasons stated hereafter
We have said that In ordinary this writ Of injunction
will be graned TO prevent mu Implicitly suits at law The
in the present l. from the great number
persons effected 10y this the remedy in equity would
litigation almost. If not quite snd vexa
bill in order obtain relief A. 10 the litigation and multi
pcy Of suite therefore, the difference in the proceedings
In the tribunal the other will scarcely Justify the inter
position Of cou Of equity In favor OF the party complain
Ing especially where the Inconvenience TO the Government
in the collection Of its public revenue is much more serious ia
the stter tribunal.
We agree II the ionder Of parties in this could
maintained this dfc Guilty Of multiplicity of suits in equity
would be very much diminished bur for the reasons already
stated entirely satisfied Is without precedent or
principle.
1t has been strongly urged that the Of money IN
ability Of these officers 70 respond IN actions At law
But whether these oeers Of sufficient responsibility or
remember that the litigation il substantially be
he tau payer ana the Government where the tex
collected under its instructions IN the present
and would be unjust TO tho latter to doubt " the tax should
be- ultimately found 10 lac Illegal that the Government would
not refund d once, tie money with interest thus Illegally
collected.
Indeed the i section Of the act has pledged the Govern
Upon the whole, without pursuing the examination Of the
urher conclusion that under the peculiar facts
tatcd think that the injunction should be Withheld
and the plriic. In to tiiei' remedy Ut law.
| Motion for Injunction deuied.
The Ferris Murder Case-Argumcnt of
Counsel.