Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1893-02-23
he State, county and municipal

struction to be given to the law
upon which individuals may well
differ, and it is his right and
manifest duty to go to the court
whose creature he is, for instrnc-
tion. 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 five cases in which re-
ceiver 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,
2e Fed. Rep, II, praying procec-
ton from the payment of a tax. 1t
appeared that the only reason for
the application was that it was
iinconvenient to the receiver to
pay the tax, and that it's validity
was in no way questioned. The
petition was rejected. But tina
learned Judge shows he would
have entertained the petition.
This is his language: SIN levying
and collecting taxes the State is
exercising its sovereign power.
There should be no interference
with it's collection of these taxes
in its precribed and regular
methods, even by court having
property in the possession Of its
receiver, unless it is first charged
that the taxes are in some way
illegal or excessive"
A bill was filed in Hewitt VS..
New York and Oswego Midland
Railroad, 12 Blatch., 452, by re-
ceivers, to test the legality of q
tax. 1t was heard by Mr.. Justice
} Rlatchford, who entertained the
: question, discussingit in a long and
elaborate opinion and sustained
the legalisy of the tax. The same
receivers came before him again
in Stevens us. the Railway Com
: pany, 13 Blatch., 1o4' and asked
relief from the same tax because
! of some irregularity, Naturally
! and properly, it having been de
cided that that tax was legal, ht
dismissed the petition.
AS we have said, a receiver
must pay all legal taxes and the
the couIt will not interfere 20
protect him if he attempt to escape
! from such payment. In Railroad
} Company VS.. Georgia, 8 Woods
437, Mr.. Justice Bradley did in
tsrfere with the summary process
If collecting taxes by the State
and in his we'll considered and able
opinion established the right Of
interference upon the highest
Two cases were found by State
courts-Connty of Yuba vs.. Adams
z CAL, 35; and Georges County vs..
Clark ct ell, SO Maryland, 2O9. The
first case distinctly shows that
the court entertained jurisdiction
of a claim of county for taxes.
The second annuls a sale made
of properly for taxes becuase the
property was in the hands of the
court.
The decisions of all the States
of the Union, and of the Supreme
Court of the United States, are
full of cases determining the
validity ola State tax or OF NUM-
cipal taxes, imposed under the
authority of the State Legislature.
The Supreme Court of tha United
States has not declared a State
tax SO imposed invalid, it has also
reversed the decision of the court
| of last resort of the State sustain
ing the tax. In this court, we find
Hoge vs. Railroad Company, SO
U. S., e49; Tomlinson vs.. Branch,
Is Wall, 460; Tomlison vs.. Jessup
Is Wall, 454. All cases seeking
injunction against the State Auditor
in the matter of taxation. In
Savannah vs.. Jessup, 1876 U. S.,
563, the ceurt decided a tax Of
the city Savannah invalid.
At the April term of this court,
1892, the case of the Richmond
and Danville Railroad Company
vs.. j. R. Blake ct al, county
treasurers and sheriffs) involving
the identical questions raised in
this case was heard by full
bench and decided. The case