Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-12-23
THE TAXPAYERS SUIT.


sued in payment Of illegal claims
The preliminary injunction was
granted; but OH tho joinder OF issues
It was, with the consent Of plaintiff,
dissolved. The case yesterday was
again before the court on demurrer
fled by the defense. This demurrer
Judge Stockslsger sustains on the
ground laid down by High on lnjunc-
ton, to-wit: that an injunction should
not lie where there is an adequate
remedy at law.
While this is good law when ap>
piled TO private cases between indi.
vidaals, it is not held to be applicable
where many suits OF a like nature are
involved. According to the same au.
THOR an injunction will also lie to pre-.
vent multiplicity Of suits.
II His Honor had read a little
further in High, lie would have found
the following in the FIRST volume, Sec
ton 80:
The mere existence Of remedy at
law is not in itself sufficient ground
for refusing relief in equity BY iniunc.
ton. Nor does tho existence Of a
T'medy ut law afford test Ms to the
right to relief in equity. 1t must also
appear that the remedy at law is plain
aud adequate. In other words that
It is practical and Efficient to secure
the ends Of justice and its proper and
prompt administration in equity.
That proposition, as enunciated by
t'e author, is fully sustained by tho
Supreme Court of the United States
Ia James Boyces Executors ". Felix
Grundy, reported in Third Peters, page
2lO. Also, in the case Of William
Watson vs.. George Sutherland, Fifth
Wallace, page "a.
Any number OF authorities could be
Cited in support, but the United
Safes Supreme Court should be
ample to satisfy any unprejudiced
man.
In the case at issue the remedy at
law was this: Each order made by
the Board of Commissioners could
have been appealed from within 20
days after it was made. AS the or.
ders or alleged orders were made
anywhere aud everywhere. almost,
and at irregular times. in Boise tout.
side of the county, or elsewhere, and
the minutes Of the same were in some
cases not written up so as to be avaled |
OF by the taxpayers or others inter>
ested so that the appeals could be
taken within the statutory time, this
remedy WAS evidently not adequate.
Again: Some &c warrants are at.
tackled by the complaint; some so
others are open to the same or other
objections. Under Judge Stocks
slsger's ruling 76 appeals would have
to be taken, rs suits initiated, l52
bondsmen secured. This would rem
der necessary the employ ment of
small army of clerks, deputy sherifrs,
notaries, lawyers, etc. 1t would kee D
the District aud Supreme Courts busy
to the detriment Of all other business
for a long time-several years, in
fact-and cost an enormous amount
of money; an amount Of money ex-
ceeding the amounts alleged to have
been illegslly paid ont in the proper.
ton OF 10 or 20 to one.
Is this. then, an ample, an fade.
quate" remedy as contemplated by
High and the Supreme Cour. OF the
United States? Can any lawyer main
tain that it is? Will any intelligent,
unprejudiced layman say that it is?
We therefore believe that Judge
Stockslager erred in his conclusion,
and that this error well-night amounts
to denial Of justice.
~
Judge Stockslag.r's conclusion Tor
decision, or announcement, or opin>
ion-or whatever it may beg surprised
no one. Away back last spring,
when the suit MAS threatened but be.
fore it was brought, It was stated
openly, publicly, on the streets, that
the suit would never get into Court,