Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-11-11
IMPROVEMENT VS.. DELAY.
InJunCtlOnlsts HOrs du Combat,


street south, and other Streets The court unan d.
lmcu'ly decided not to grant tho IuIunctions
a'Vu w, pu"r0 "s"' u'sp'u.Vu 'us Itcin
some OF the grounds on which the majority OF
the court founded their opinion, but concurred
With nj, nss,,Iates In The j,d.,,n,,
S,tno NJ. S.,So.'. o,,V s,,
JuuRe mohtlhut opinion 10 rs IoIlOWai
Hardness ct al. vs.. District OF Columbia and
Board Of Public Works MIR. Justice Mac
Arthur delivered tho opinion Of the court, sayingi
This is an 0Tder TO show cause why prollnl
mary lniunetion should not hp allUNcl pSohlblt
Ing the Board d ptbllb Works from isStlpg
certificates Of Indebtedness against the fetotdl
lots OF ground belonging TO tho cOmplAinauts
and others fronting aud abutting upon New
YORK avenue, between Ninth and Fifteenth
streets. by the act Of tho Legislative Assembly,
| approved August 10, 1871, II ls provided that
Whenever any improvements shall be completed
| statement OF tho cost thereof shall be mrdo
by the board and hled In their obice, and an
aNsessment based upon such stAtemPnt shall DO
made anu collected by eald board 70 the sttfo
manner as other taxes are authorized 70 DO col.
lectedi That such assessment shall not be paid
az tho expiration OF thlrty days alter notice, the
OOarl Is authorized 70 issue intefestbearlng
ceruhcates Of Indebtedness against the property
assessed as aforesaid, which assessment and
ceIuucate shall DO q lien upon said property.
The complainAnts set forth that they are the
owners In soyeralty OF lots OF ground fronting
anu Abuttng on New YORK avenue, between
thAt other persons are also owners In llbe
manner OF lOu upon tall avenue between
said streets, on behalf Of whom as
we'll as Of themselves this suit Is brought,
The complaint also shows that an Sssessme1t
has been made by the Board Of Public Works
upon the several lots so owned by the plaintltfs
| based upon statement OF the cost Of improving
| said avenue between the streets Aforesaid that
plaintiffs have not paid said assessment, aud
| that certificates Of Indebtedness have been IRE.
pared by the board and will be Issued, and that
u IL the design OF said board to negotiate tho
same, and collect the proceeds thereof, and they
| say they are advised that the assessments and
| certificates being appolntly valid upon their
| iaoe viii operate 70 throw aelOud Upon the titles
| ment Is Illegal and void, and the present appli-
cation 10 for preliminary Injunction to restrain
the board from Issuing any certificates Of 10.
debtedness against the lots Of ground 80 owned
by the complalnants.
There are several allegations respecting the
Illegally Of me assessment the most prominent
being that there was no law authorizing the I'm
proyoment as II was made, and no valid law au-
thOri1lng the assessment by tho board. The
anal prayer Of the bill IL Tor decree setting
aside such assessment, but the present applicL.
tlOn Is for preliminary injunction TO restrain
the threatened action Of the board as To Issuing
tho certificates OF Indebtedness against the lots
II is now Well.settled principle that courts
OF equity will not interfere by lnluneuon to re-
strain the enforcement or collection OF tax
upon mere allegation that II Ia illegal or void
This rule, as applicable to taxation, Is nov so
familiar and wellostabllshed as not TO need the
citation Of authorities, and II proceeds upon the
ground that In all such cases the party Injured
has an ADEQUATE remedy at law, II the tax be
unauthorized, or II the persons making the as
sessment proceed without authority OF law, tten
most certainly there Is an adequate remedy with.
out tho interpretation Of court OF equity. This
doctrine Is fully eSpounded by tho supreme
Court In the case Of COwlng vs. Tho City Of 81.
Louis, Wallace, sl2, where the syllabus reads
as follows:
"Wlth the proceedings and determination OF
Inferior boards or tribunals OF special iurisdic-
ton courts Of equity will not Interfere, unless 1t
should become necessary to prevent a multlpll.
city Of suits or iFTeparable injury, or unless The
proceeding sought to he Annullsd or corrected
is valid upon Its face, and the alleged inyalility
consists 10 matters to DO established by intrinsic
evidence. In other cases the review and cOTTCc-
tiOn Of the proceedings must be obtained by the
writ Of cerii0TdrL Therefore, TO \ bill MED to
onlOln the enforcement Of judgments rendered
against the complainant by tue mayor Of ST.
Louis for the amount Of alleged beneht to his
property from the opening VI q street IN that
city, and setting forth as grounds Of relief want
Of authority In the mayor, and various defects
aud irregularities In the proceedings, q demur.
Ter on the ground that q court OF equity had no
Jurisdiction Of the matter, and that the oDn.
plalnant had a plain, adequate and complete
remedy at law, was sustained"
Nor do understand the counsel on either side
to cOntrovert the general principle. In the much.
81 cd case OF Dow vs. Tho City OF Chicago II
Wallace, los, tho supreme Court again sustain
and apply the same rule, but statlng more clearly
tho equitable considerations which would Justify
an apparent departure from 1t. They saw:
Assuming the tax TO be Illegal and void va do
moi think any uFnunl IA FTTo.ant.t - 80 t.ttI