The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-08-21
THE COURTS.
Pacific Mail Steamship Com
pany'S Assessment.
ENFORCING A PERSONAL TAX.
The Benevolent Patrons OF st.
Johns Guild.


$1S6941 upon personal property Of the Pacific Mail
Steamship Company. Apparently without question
ing the validity of this assessment the company
made two payments on account of such assessment.
aggregating S91.9S5 c. the latter payment being
made December 81, 1876. since which date no
payments have been made. AS q determination
evinced the part of tho city to enforce payment Of
the balance due the steamship company obtained
temporary injunction restraining the city from such
collection. motion to make permanent this in
junction argued several weeks since at great
length before Judge Potter. in Supreme Court.
Chambers. Judge Potter yesterday gave his decision
in the case. embodying the same in an elaborate
opinion, the main points of which given below.
'.The eist Of the complaint" Judge Potter says.
after stating the facts OF the case sis that the
assessment roll not verified by the oath of the
deputy tax commissioners. and that by
Of such omission the of the plaintiff is
illegal and void The defendants do not, in their
afidavs in opposition to the motion, assent in
their argument on the motion contend. that the
sessment roll was in fact verified by oath OF either
the deputy or the Commissioner. The contention
OF the defendant is that by existing statutes veri
cation of the assessment roll by oath is required,
and that II such oath necessary bill in equity
to restrain its collection is not the proper remedy,
and, il it were. the defendants estopped from
resorting to 1t or any other remedy by reason
Of the Judgment OF the Court declaring
able in certiorari proceedings to test its
validity between the parties to this action. The
clusion have reached i'll relation to the remedy and
estoppel will render thorough examination OF the
statutes which cited anu were common ted upon
with great learning and ability upon the argument,
unnecessary. have no occasion to examine the
statutes further than to ascertain when the oath Of
verifcation-if any is required in the assessment
proceedings-is to be made tor the purpose OF de-
terminlng whether plaintiff is estopped by the judg
Inent i'll the certiorari proceedings. From the
animation which have made OF the assessment
statutes satisfied that il the assessment roll is
to be verified by the oath OF any one 1T to be done
by the Deputy Commissioners (who have taken the
place OF the former ward assessors), and that the
assessment roll is to be completed and delivered by
them before the LIST day Of April in each year.
The writ of certiorari issued on the lst day OF
July 1874 and required the Commissioners Of Taxes
to certify and return all assessment proceedings,
with all depositions. assessment rolls papers. dccu-
mens decisions and all other things appertaining to
such proceedings. The Commissioners. in obedience
to said writ. made return OF their proceedings and
particularly that they completed the assessment
rolls and on the fret Monday July deliver
to the Supervisors, and. among other things,
particularly setting forth copy OF the
ing the plaintiffs, which return was dated January
Z, 1876 From this statement it will appear that the
returns to the ccrtiorar did might have brought
up all the proceedings for the assessment OF plain
ts, certainly the assessment rolls, with or without
oaths OF verhcation the consideration and judg
ment of the Court reviewing such assessment pro-
ceedngs The judgment of the Court OF last resort
in this State. and afterward of the Supreme Court
of the United States to the effect that the
ment in question was legal and the tax should be
paid by plaintiff. That Judgment remains in full
force. 1t long well estaDllSneu tuat
Judgment OF Court possessing competent jurisdic'
ton is final, not only rs to the subject matter
thereby accurately determined. but to any
other matter which the parties might ltigate
in the aud which they might have had decided.
There must be end of litigation when the parties
have or might have had judicial determination of
the subject of legal dispute. The judgment irrev-
ocably establishes all matters questioned or ques
tionable in the proceeding. The entire proceeding
OF assessing tho plaintiffs with all its defects r
Irregularities or omissions III any there were), was
before the Court for its judgment upon them. and
the Court gave its judgment that there were none
such, and that the tax assessment was legal and
valid in all respects. 1t may or may not have been
the case that the omission OF the oath was the sub
ject of discussion contention between the parties
hereto i'll the certiorari proceeding The necessity
of the cath may have been waived by them, or it
may not have occurred to them or their counsel
upon he argument The record and judgment do
not afford information whether the omission OF the
oath was raised or discussed. or waived.
consequence is the same. where it might have been
where it was determined. That judgment estab-
tial to the validity of the assessment aud II can
again be called in question. But II the plaintiff
not estopped from raising the question of the
legality Of the assessment the form of the remedy
chosen in this case cannot afford the relief sought
The general rule is that courts IN equity cannot be
resorted to for relief where there ample remedy
at law II assessment is Illegal or void the party
aggricved had the legal remedies of certiorari to
review and correct the assessment, or of mandamus
TO compel the assessment to be stricken of.
action to allow to recover any money paid or prop
erty seized to satisfy the tax 1t has often and uni
formly been held by the courts that the remedy by
Injunction to restrain the collection OF illegal
erroneous tax assessed to the owner OF personal
property is not allowable. unless the case stated
tails within some OF the recognized claims of equity
jurisdiction. The complainant must show, in order
to be entertained in equity that the action Will pre-
vehs muitiplcty Oh actions' Iis paaaoie inJun "
TO establis the inyioabiiity of the lien of the as
sessment 1t will be hardly pretended that
the facts set forth in the complaint in
this action make case within either
of those exceptional classes. There Is no allegation
pretence in the complaint that any other action
is likely to arise between the defendant and any
other taxpayer account of this assessment, or
that any other taxpayer except the plaintiff has re-
fused or failed to pay the taxes IL Is not alleged
that there any freehold to be appealed or that the
tax is lien upon anything. or that extrinsc evil
dence Is required to show its invo!ability. Such
of those allegations is the truth. Indeed. such is
., an naa oae~ in his treatise on
taxation is ailege ed to :when tax is assessed
as personal charge against the party taxed, or
ea. an is po sv opp,it:ile inrsdict;on pre-
sumptively, the remedy at law is adequate. If
Al. ax,I Eau