Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-11-11

| Auu NNIkhluAl w NnKlN 70 require tltNTtN lAu=
guage than that employed 10 this statute to
| WORK change 90 material Upon the whole,
| We trs Of opinion that Upon tho showing Of this
bill We cannot lhtsrpCts, Upon the ground Of a
threatened cloud upon title.
Tho Jurisdiction Of this court IL also invoked
| on the ground Of multiplicity Of suits There
T. undou6todly such ground Of equitable e.
| lleiJ although y IL somewhat dtfcult In appli.
cation. One rule respecting T. Il, however, quite
cleati and that Is that II cannot be applied
Mhete the cause Of action is peFiest IN each In.
| dlyldual tax payer. The reasOh Tor suit btlnS
! brought In the name Of ono or more 10 behalf oil
| all Is that whero large number Of persons
have common Interest In the subject. matter OF
! litigation court OF equity will administer re.
lief so m 70 prevent multiplied and useless It'll
| cation, Mr.. Justin Story, In bis Equity Plead.
inH! at sections bil.2-3, elites several Instances
cqedings fot raising taxes can 10 mdlntalnod "
| all, then thb cause Of action "a distinct
and perfect 10 each sopafAte, lot ou9sr, and
! there Is not the slightest danger OF his being
haTassed by numerous sulls, fOr his rights oFp
| DO amply settled In ono suit alone THIS point
| has been the subject OF express aliudlcatlon.
| In the case Of DOdd VS.. Clty Of Hartford, 20
Conn, 232, bill was iled 10 chancery by several
| taxpayers In bohal Of themselves and others to
restrain the collection Of tax for the eonstruo.
li'sgal ltd vrii. .'Ths aS1Tt say
"rhe elalm most pfoSsCd 81 thb petitioners ID,
that the court ought 10 entertain tuilsilutiUn IN
| order TO prevent multiplicity OF suits. Bat no
one Of these petitioners has any interest 10 the
| suit which another Of them may DO called to 10.
| stltuto thoy cannot Individually complain that
S .bs arg COMPLETED 70 sns, lot they nave no
| suits. The multiplicity Of suits which the petl
| tlOn seeks TO avoid does not Affect injuriOusly
any one Of tho petitioners. No one Of them has
| ocedllon 70 expect any ouch multiplicity Affect.
Ing himself One suit al that Abt ops Of ttieni
has 10 fear, and the object Of this bill Would se4m
10 be p relieve these parties seyorally from that
one suit, AMI to consolidate tho Appreciated
litigation. IN other words to enforce a cousol.
dalton rule by means OF the extraordinary
powers Of \ court Of ehanceTy."
| In Sheldon and others vs.. Tho Centre School
| District, IS Conn, 22s, a bill 10 chancery was
| filed by thlrty.nino taxpayers, asking an In.
junction against tho collection Of tax and the
same question was decided In the same way.
| The reports OF tho Supreme court Of
! Wisconsin contain two recent cases In which II
| IL held that separate lot owners cannot unite Ia
an action 70 restrain the collection OF taxes
alleged to be Illegally assessed upon lots owned
| by them In sovotalty as each IL entitled TO his
| own suit. barnes ct al ys. The Uity Of Heloit,
" wis, 9ji NeWcombys. Horton OF al, Is WIS i,
The case OF Cutting ct al. vs.. Gilbert ct al, 8
BlatchfOrd $50, has recently been frequently re-.
ferred to In this court until II Is familiar 10 us
all. II was a bill 10 equity filed by six hrms Of
| the city Of New York, who were licensed and
doing business as bankers and brokers under tho
whether they could unite 10 a bill Of place to
eniOln the assessing and collecting Of q tax with
which they claimed they were not chargeable
HosM9rdiGs e ne provisions o. 5hSt Het
l
large upon this aspect Of the case, and finally
closes that part Of II by observing, ITO ALLOW
them to BE- parties 10 the suit would confodnd
the established order Of Judicial proccedingS and
lead 10 endless perpieNlty aud confusion. 1 am
satisfied, therefore, that this bill cannot be sus
t9lned Pn account Of tho jOinder Of improper
10 thocaso Of Low vs. CITY Of Chicago, already
mentioned, although tho supreme court say
that equity will Interfere TO prevent multiplicity
OF suits, yet, speaking Of the plaintiff In that
case, they declare, "nOT would ho have been com.
PEELED TO resort to u multiplicity OF suits to do.
termine bis rights. His entire claim might have
been embraced In a single action"
It appears to me that those authorl.
ties and the reasons on which they
are founded Bhoy concuslvely that indi.
yidual taxpayers whose property has been sepa.
rately assessed have not That Community OF
interest which will allow thom to unite IN a bill
Of complaint, on the ground OF preventing a
ment may be, but each must stand upon his
own right, and malntal1 his action according to
the principle Of tho common law 10 his own
name. II therefore becomes unnecessary to eN.
anime the decided cases that are supposed to be
analogous, for they have no application TO these
lot owners
A court Of equity will not Interfere by lnjunc.
tlon when the consequences which might ensue
would be little less Injurious than those to DO
prevented BY this process.
1t rests 10 the sound discretion Of the court.
and II will grant injunction with tho greatest
reluctance to restrain a man 10 the exercise Of
his trade, or to stay tho operations OF manufic.
turing establishments, or other private institu-
lions Of large business relations. In the leading
cases, whore the attempt has been made to Gu
Join taxing officers, the courts have declared
1 that there are reasons Of public Justice and
! policy why court OF chancefy should not inter
ioro TO suspend tho collection OF public revenue
unless In exceptional cases. These declarations
have nearly all boon made Ia cases Of special
These considerations would seem to have even
| more than ordinary force In this case. In the
enmmunieltlOn made by the Board Of Public
I - he
OF June, 1871, and which is made an exhibit to
the bill, they say that the statement they sub.
init contemplates permanent improvements In
every portion OF the District Of Columbia, and
comprise almost every street and avenue IN the
cities OF Washington and Georgetown as we'll as
on the roads In the county. Let II also he re.
membered that reasonable proportion OF the
expenses not exceeding one third Of tho whole
Is TO DO assessed upon the adjacent property,
and whom tho improvements are completed BY
the expenditure OF millions out Of the general
fund court Of equity should deliberate So
Tiously before interfering with its suspenslvo
process, thus enabling two or more lot owners
10 every neikhborhood throughout the District
70 hle bills on behalf Of all whose property had
been assessed Tor the same improve ents, and
suhlecting the collection Of one third Of the
public revenue to the hazard and delay OF pro.
trActed chancery lilgatiOns. To saythe very least
there would certainly be greater danger 10 allow.
ing iulunctlOns under such circumstances than
10 refusing them. When the lot owner has am-
pie remedy at law It would no inequltable TO
allow him TO assert claim mere which would be
attended with such consequences.
For similar reasons courts have refused to Gu
Join the collection VI special taxes Tor Improve
lnents where the owner OF the property has not
objected until the work was completed. The
following are instances Of this kind
"When the owner Of real estate In a city stands
by and sees a street improved adjoining his prop.
erty, in contract made under an srder OF tho
common council, without attempting 10y IN.
lunctlOn) TO prevent such improvements, no
cannot, Gler The work is completed or nearly
completed, refuse TO pay for it."-Clty OF Lafay.
cite vs. Fowler, 81 Md, 40.
Where an assessment was laid for tho puF-
pose Of improving street, and the improve.
menis were completed without plaintiffs inter
position In the outset to prevent It, and when
finished he then fled an Injunction bill to stay
the sale Of his land for tho payment OF his pof.
ton Of tho assessment: Held that the lniunc.
ton ought to DO dissolved on the ground that no
who asks equity must do equity, and that tho
city should be permitted to prooeei and sell tho
plaintiffs land for the purpose Of satisfying tho
assessment, leaving him, after the sale, 10 tho
technical right which he set uD by reason, rs he
claimed, Of some Irregularities In the mode Of
making the assesslnent.-Webor We. CITY OF
San Francisco, l Gal l55,
"where an owner Of property 10 a city sees a
contractor go on and make street improve
ment adjoining his property under q contract
with tho city, and makes no objection while the
work is being done, be cannot, alter the work Is
completed and accepted by the city as having
been done according to the contract, eniOln the
collection Of the entire assessments made for
such improvements, on tho ground that the
strictly In accordance with the contractn-
Evansville W. Phsteret, 81 Ind, 80.
THE TACT that an owner OF land assessed
Tor local improvement does not come into
chAnceTy until several months after Its compile
tlon Is substantial reason why the court Of
chAnoeTy should refuse to set aside the proceed.
ings."-WiBgln vs.. Mayor oil Now York, y
Paiye, 10.
To these might DO added many other analo.
gous cases OF estoppei. II appears that the im.
prOyemonu on New York avenue required tho
expenditure Of large sum OF money and tho
employment OF contractors to do tho work. 1t
Is " be preSumChthat the plaintiffs had full
knowledge OF the work as Il progressed, and al.
lowed II 10 go on 10 completion without objection
or rem0nstrAncs. However this silence may af.
lect the legal rights Of the parties there can bO
no doubt that II ought TO DO considered by this
court a. fatal 70 any application for It's extraOr.
binary lnJunoti0nnl process, In order to restrain
tho collection Otthe revenue TO pay for portion
Of the cost already Incurred
have not considered this case with reference
20 the demurrer or answers, but simply Upon the
showing OF tho bill. doubtless the vlews al.
ready expressed would DO decisive OF the former.
This Is not hearing however, which can DO fol.
lowed BY Judgment final The order TO DO
made Is interlCcutory. Nor have examined
the alleged legality or Illegally Of the Assess-
ment, But hndlng We have not Jurisdiction Of
the action the order to show cause must DO dis
solved, and the Injunction asked tor denied.