Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-11-09
The NJuNCTIoNIsTs DEFEATED.
Important Decision.
Special Taxes for Improvements Must be Paid.
Temporary Injunction Against th
Board of Public Works Refused nv
the Court I'm General Term,

the motion for an injunction, thus sustaining
| the District government and the board OF public
works.
| SUPREMB Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
HdTkness ct al ps. District Of Columbia and
| Board IF Public Works.
! Mr.. Justice Macarthur delivered the opinion
| of the court, saving: ct his IL order to show
| cause why preliminary injunction should not
| be allowed prohibiting the board of public
| works from issuing certificates of indie btedness
| against the several lots of ground belonging to
| the compliments and others fronting and
abutting upon New York avenue, between 9th
| and 18th streets, in this city," After quoting
from the act of the Legislative Assembly, APP
proved August 10, 1871. in reference TO improve
ments and reviewing what the cOmpIainants set
forth IN their paIer before the court, as hereto
lore published, the opir ion proceeds as follows:
90 lie Is now well-settled principle that courts
OF equity will not interfere by injunction to
restrain the enforcement or collection of a tax
gPon mere ALE CATION that it is illegal or void
his rule, As applicable to taxation, is now so
familiar and well-established as not to need the
citation OF authorities; and it proceeds upon the
ground that in all such cases the party injured
has an adequate remedy at law. If the tax be
unauthorized, or If the persons making the as
sesSment proceed without authority of law then
most certainly there is an adequate remedy
without the intrrpOsitiOn of court OF e1uity
. This doctrine is fully expounded by the suprem
court in the case of Ewing VS.. the CITY of ST
Louis; 3 Wallace, 49,"
With the proceedings and determinations of
inferior boards or tribunals of special jurisiic-
ton courts of equity will not interfere, unless il
should become necessary to prevent a multi
ptlcity of suits or irreparable injury or unless
the proceedings sought to be annuIled or cor
rected is valid upon its face. and the alleged
lnyalidity consists in matters to be established
by intrinsic evidence. In other cases the review
and correction of the proceedings must be OBJ
tanned by the writ of certiorari. Therefore to
bill filed To enioin the enforcement of indy
meDts rendered against the complainant by the
mayor OF ST. Louis for the amount of alleged
benefit TO his property from the opening of a
street IN that city, and setting forth as grounds
OF relief want of authority in the mayor, and
various defects and irregularities in the pro-
ceedings, a demurrer on the ground that a court
OF equity had no Jurisdiction of the matter and
that the complainant had plain, adequate and
complete remedy at law, was ustained.''
Nor do / understand the counsel on either
side to controvert the general principle. In the
much cited case of Dow VS.. the City OF Chicago,
III Wallace, 10S, the Supreme Court again sis-
tain and apply the same rule, bat stating more
clearly the equitable considerations which would
justify an apparent departure from 1t.
This decision Is cited, and also the case of
Dow VS.. the City of Chicago, ii Wallace, 1Os, in
which the Supreme Court agsin sustains and
applies same rule more clearly, the qutsble con-
siderations which would justify an apparent de-
parture fl, m il, and the decision SAYS:
The limitations of the rule which excludes
the action of court of equity in all cases of tax
proceedings are here sufficiently explained:
According to which the chancery Jurisdiction
will only interpose when the enforcement of the
tax would lead to a multiplicity OF suits or pro-
duee irreparable injury, or where the property
plaintiffs 1t is argued that the bill in this case
falls under two OF these heads of equity, viz
That il prevents multiplicity of suits and also a
threatened cloud upon the title to real estate.
Probably the averments of the bill IN this re-
sPect would be sufficient to lay a foundation for
equitable relief il they can be actually applied
TO the circumstances of this case. The decisions
which establish the doctrine that court of equity
will not enjOin the collection OF taxes enormously
assessed, when the injured party can have ade-
quate redress at law, generally declare that a
n ff1fo
neither a lien nor cloud upon the title to rea
estate" After quoting what the court of appeals
said in the case of Haywood VS.. city OF Buffalo
ii, y. V, 5S1, the opinion proceeds as follows
80 In that case the assessment was for the ex-
penses OF the purchase of lot and the building
OF a school house thereon, which were assessed
by the board OF assessors upon the taxable pro-
perty of the district, and therefore directly
covers the question of q cloud upon title to real
estate. This is the decision referred to by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case
OF Dow VS.. City of Chicago, as stating correctly
the grounds of equity Jurisdiction. Indeed
the doctrine derived from a review of
upon title growing out OF proceedings for
the collection Of taxes can only exist ia such
rare instances as where the lrregularity COM
planned of does not appear upon the face of the
record, and where it can only be established by
outside testimony" After quoting the remarks
OF the court in Ward VS.. Dewey, l6, N. Y SIG,
the opinion goes on TO say: I'VE think this is the
settled doctrine of the case, and In accordance
with II we hold that where an assessment is void
upon the record there can be no cloud upon
title within the equity powers Of this court; and
1t is only when the invalidity is to be proved by
other means that chsncery will interpose its
preventive remedies. In the case now before us
all the material facts are matters Of record or
matters of public law. Whether there was any
law authorizing the improvement, or any valid |
Is " authorizing the assessment, are matters OF
record, and are as public as the assessment
itself. They would all come up upon a writ OF
certorari. No extrinsic evidence would be re-
WA lad
argument OF this notion"
I'VE are also asked to restrain an attempt to
issue these certificates for the that if the
property upon which the assessment Is made be
sold for the nom pay ment thereof, as provided
tor in said act OF assembly, the deed would be
conclusive evidence OF title. 1t is contended
that tax deed under this provision would be /
conclusive that all the req uireme OF the law
had been complied with, and that in such case |
the compliments have no other remedy. Even /
II the deed had this effect, the complainants
would have the right OF certiorari and OF re- |
covering back the amount of their assessment if /
paid under protest. 1t has been repeatedly de- |
eided that the taxpayer is entitled to both of |
these remedies al law. But We are not inclined /
10 adopt this construction Of the statute. 1t is
a familiar principle of law that purchaser at |
o tax sale must prove the regularity Of the pro-
ceediDgs from the beginning to the time OF the
sale Upon the whole, we are OF
opinion that upon the showing OF this bill we
cannot interpose upon the ground Of a threat
ened cloud upon title.
Inc jurisdiction Of this court is also invoked /
% ihe ground Of multiplicity of suits. There Is
undoubtedly such ground of equitable relief,
although 1t Is somewhat difficult in application
One rule respecting II Is, however, quite clear,
ahu lhat Is 'hat =. - canno. ne applied where the
.use of action is perfect in each individual |
taxpayer. Mr.. Justice Story, in his Equity |
PIeadiDgs, at sections 54l-2-3, cites several in
stances But If an action to restrain proceed |
ings Tor raising taxes can be maintained at all, |
then the cause OF action is distinct and perfect
in each separate lot owner, and there is not the
slightest danger of his being harra raised by nu- |
merOus suits, Tor his rights can be amply settled
in one suit alone. This point has been the sub |
ject of express adjudication. |
After citing numerous decisions to this effect |
the opinion proceeds as follows alt appears to
me that these authorities, and the reasons on
which they are founded show conclusively that
individual taxpayers whose property has been
separately assessed have not that community of
interest which will allow them to unite in bill
OF complaint on the ground of preventing a
multiplicity OF suits, however illegal the assess
ment may be. But each must stand upon his
own right, and maintain his action according to
the principle of the common law, in his own
name. 1t therefore becomes necessary to ex-
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 injunc-
ton where the consequences which might ensue
would be little less injurious than those to be
prevented by this process In the leading cases