The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-22

! South CarOllQ2 autDOTILes |ue oueA IA
to distrain for non-payment of taxes
sufficient personal property OF the
party charged with the tax to pay the
same. This is the limit Of this author
ity. Of course he should not be con-
fined to just enough property to pay
the tax. But he cannot under cover OF
this distrain upon $4,000 for Sl,2l5 o.
Nor under any circumstances can he
distrain the property of persons other
than the taxpayer. We cannot escape
the conclusion that the purpose of the
sheriff was not to follow the law, and
that his action was the result Of prede
termination and intention to coerce
the receiver and this Court into the
payment of the excessive tax, notwith-
standing and despite Of the claim that
it was illegal and void.
But the case will not be rested on
this ground. There can be no doubt
that property in the hands of a receiver
of any Court, either of a State or Of the
United States, is as much bound for
the payment of taxes, State, county
and municipal, as any other property.
Persons cannot, by coming into this
Court and for the promotion of their
interests, applying for and obtaining
the appointment of receivers, obtain
exemption from the paramount duty
of citizen. For this reason receivers
in this district pay all just and lawful
taxes without asking or needing the
sanction of the Court, and in their ac-
counts such payments are passed with
out question. But on the other hand
receivers are not bound to pay tax in
their judgment unlawful, without the
order of the Court. And when they
consider the legality of the tax ques-
tionable, it is their right, their manifest
duty, to apply to the Court either for
instruction or protection. Especially
is this the case when the question
arises between the receiver and per-
sons in the State, county and munich
pal government as to the proper con-
struction to be given to the law, upon
which individuals may we'll differ, and
it is his right and manifest duty to &C
to the Court, whose creature he is, for
instruction. He therefore pursued the
proper course when he came in by this
petition.
The research Of counsel on both sides
of this case has succeeded in finding
Eve cases in which receiver was
driven to seek the protection of the
Court in the matter of taxation. All
of them of persuasive authority. None
of them of conclusive authority. A
petition was filed by a receiver
before Judge Brewer in Central
Railroad Company VS. Wabash, 26
Fed. Rep, II, praying protection
from the payment of tax. 1t ap-
peared that the only reason for the ap-
plication was that it was inconvenient
to the receiver to pay the tax, and that
it's validity was in no way questioned.
The petition was rejected: But the
learned Judge shows distinctly his
opinion that upon proper showing be
would have entertained the petition.
This is his language: "1n levying and
collecting taxes the State is exercising
it's sovereign power. There should be
no interference with its collection OF
these taxes in its prescribed and regu-
lar methods, even by Court having
property in the possession of its recelv-
er, unless it is first charged that the
taxes are in some way illegal or excess
ive."
A bill was fled in Hewitt VS. New
York and Oswego Midland Railroad,
l2 Blatch, 452, by receivers to test the
legality of tax. It was heard by Mr..
Justice Blatchford, who entertained
the question, discussed it in a long and
elaborate opinion and sustained the
legality Of the tax.
The same receivers came before him
again in Stevens VS.. Railroad Compa-
ny, IS Blatch, 104, and asked relief
from the same tax because of some
irregularity. Naturally and properly,
it having been decided that the tax
was legal he dismissed the petition.
AS we have said, receiver must pay
all legal taxes, and the Court will not
interfere to protect him if he attempt
to escape from such payment.
In Railroad Company VS.. Georgia, 3
Woods, 437, Mr.. Justice Bradley did
interfere with the summary process OF
collecting taxes by the State and in his
well considered and able opinion estah-
lished the right of interference upon
the highest grounds of public policy.
Two cases were found by StateCourts:
County of Yuba VS.. Adams, Z CAL, 35,
and Georges County VS.. Clark ct al, 81
Maryland, 2O6. The first case distinctly
shows that the Court entertained juris-
diction of claim of county for taxes
The second annuls sale made of prop
ertv for taxes because the property was
in the hands of the Court. The decls-
ions of all of the States of the Union
and of the Supreme Court ofthe United
States are full OF cases determining the
validity of State tax or of municipal
taxes imposed under the authority OF
the State Legislature. The Supreme
Court of the United States has not only
declared State tax so imposed;inval-
id, it has also reversed the decision OF
the.Ccurt of last resort of the State sus-
tanning the tax. In this Court we IND