Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-02-29

1Uo. Inc case OF LOUISVILLE VI. GWatttm6y
and Gretsingsr,1 AKIN, 4I2, was a bill to
enioin b collection OF g tax, and the
court held that no ground was shown for
the Interpolation of q court OF equity, for,
"If the trustees had the authority to levy
tbs tax they might no doubt righifully
collect 1t; and II they had no such author
ity and should attempt to cosrce payment
OF the tax by distress they would begutlty
OF a wrong, tor which a court oflaW would
In Ill 1888 u 40l tax caaes) the question
of Jurisdiction is ~elaborately discussed,
and In both the court held adversely 70
the jurisdiction. allowing, at the same
time, that there might be
EXCEPTIONAL CASES;
and these I understand to be such az
would cause irrepsrahis damage, q multi
pltctEy or suits, or in case OF real estate,
throw q cloud upon title. This SEEMS to
me to be Inc doctrine Of the supreme
court Of Mississippi as e~nunciaied in
Coulson VS. Harris.
The only question remaining Isl Does
the bill of complainants present such q
case as TO bring IL within either OF these
exceptions2 Upon a first examination
land in view OF the action of one of the
Judges OF the supreme court on q bill dled
To restrain 2 distress for q tax against the
Vicksburg and Meridisn railroad com
pany)I was inclined to think thiE q case
Of equity Jurisdiction, but, upon rehsc-
ton, and q more thorough Investigation
of the subject, together with
A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF q
my mind has undergone a change. I see
no reason to spprehend sueh mischief or
damage as could not be rsmedied ia a
court of law. True, "several" of con-
p~lsinsnts have mortRagsd OF will or may
mortgage their lands or portions Ct them
to meet current expenses. Even this, If
ts weres ground for the Interference Of
equity, is not alleged TO be the case with
al, and I ana inclined to think sha bill
would have been demurrsble upon this
ground, and IL Is only these who alleged
~irreparsble mischief. But who ars theyR
The bill does not show, and I cannot IN
dertske to ind out.
TIE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TAX
could not in my opinion produces such a
multiciplity of suits, as Ia contemplated
By the rule authorizing the interpretation
ofequity. Each Individual complainant
Is q separate and distinct person, with Sc
psrste and distinct rights and separate
and distinct property. in which there Is
no joint owners or clsim, but each could
only be involved in one suit, and even IN
case Of the repetition Of the tax. yet,
whenever the first suit is decided Htigs-
ton must Terminate, for the QUESTION
would then be settled, and there would
be 40 necessity TOR its going farther. I
think the correct doctrine is laid down in
McCoy vs.. Chillicothe, where the court
sayI: "If the bsx was levied by distress,
one action at law would settle the right
and secure to the party his redress. If,
Notwithstanding,
ANOTHEE TAX VERB RvIER<
It would be the subject Of a singlG suit.
The separate repetition of t-resSasses,
laying g ground for separate sufs be-
tween the Sans parties, is not that de-
scription ofmultiplicity Of suits which in
duoes equity TO interfere" 3 Hammond
$40.
The case OF Dodd ct. al, VS.. iity of
Hartford, which was cited by the court
in COulson US. Harris, presents some
points Of striking analogy with the pres
emit, and the bill in hat case was dis
missed upon demurrer, the court hold
ing "that ths chgncery court had no ju-
risclictiOn to interfere by way gf iDjunc-
ton, for. that no property, righs or fran
chine held by compliments in common,
is claimed. to be affected by the proceed
ings OF the city. The assessments were
sgslnst the cOmplsinants sevsrsIy, not
against them Jointly. II the taxes are
collected and any OF these parties have
OCCASION to bring
SUITS AT LAW
thsi. suits must be several and separate.
Thslr cannot Join in an action at law
rgsinst the city or against the lax coilec
tor. The multiplicity Ofsuits which the
bill seeks to avoid does not affect iuiuri-
ously any of the c-omplainants. No one
of thHm has occasion TO expect any such
multiplicity affecting himself. Que suit
Is ali that q has to fear" There is no
allegation in cCmplsinsnts' bill, of the in
~sOlvency CT the defendants and their con-
seQuel2t inability to respond to suits at
law, and TO anticipate sach q contingency
is to invite the court to launch out upon a
sea OF uncertainty and speculation-s
which is at variance with sl the
established principles Of equity jurispru-
dence.
I see no resaon to spprehen6 such a
cloud upon titles as to bring the case
within the scope of ohsncery Jurisdiction,
az laid down by the weight or authorities.
II the tax is Illegal and void, the deed
which the tax collector may execute will
be a nullity; and If It is legal and valid,
the curtis OF urs will not Interfere.
IN CONCLUSION,
IL seems TO be the well-established doc
trine Of chsncery practice chat reasons of
public policy, founded on the necessity Of
8 speedy collection Of taxes, ought to pre-
vent a court OF chsncery from sUspending
these proceedings except upon The c~lsaresE
grounds" and while I do nc understand
it to be the indsxible rule that equity can
interfere In no oass 70 stay the collection
of q tax, 1 think the esses in which
such interference would be Unsuitable
present reasons 50 clesr and coEent
that imminent danger of pslp bic and ir- !
repsrsble wrong and mischief would ir-
rssistibly occu: to the mind, upon the
fsc.s set forth On the fscs of the bill, or at |
least upon q mature and careful examins-
ton Of its several allegations. Such an
examination I have given tbs bill before
me, yet. even aided by the elaborate az
yument OF counsel, and tbs lights Of al
The authorities within my reach, 1 am IN
sois to recognize such q cass as would
suthorizs me to perpetuste the iniunc-
lion.
The motion must therefore be sustained
ind the injunction dissolved and the bill
dismissed, and the Law being mandatory
ss to damages, such damages will be
as plaintiffs have suffered or
nay suffer Or account of the delay at
upon this suit. Decree entered
accordingly.
White and Chalmers were counsel for
,omplsinsnts, snd Henry Graft, OF this
.or defendants.