The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-02-22

ing taxes the state is exercising It's sovereig
| power There should be no interference wit
Its collection OF these taxes IN its pr prescripIe
property In the possession of Is receiver, VI
| less it is first charged that the taxes are /
some way illegal or excessive"
oswego ~ ego Midland MID and Railroad, i2 Biatch, 452, b
receivers to test the legality OF tax. 1t wa
heard by Mr.. Justice Blatchford, who entel
| tained the question. discussed In long an
elaborate opinion and sustained the legallt
| of the tax.
The same receivers came before him agail
| In stevens VS.. Railroad Company, B Blatch
| l0i. and asked relief from the same tax be
cause of some irreguiari ~. Naturally an,
properly, 1t having been decided that the Ia
was legal, he dismissed the petition.
AS we have said. n receiver must pay all le
gal taxes, and the Court will not Interfere u
protect him If he attempt TO escape from sucl
payment.
In Railroad Company vs. Georgia, Woods
1877, Mr.. Justice Bradley did interfere with th
summary process OF collecting taxes by TN
State and In his we'll considered and aol'
opinion established the right OF interference
upon the highest grounds Of public policy.
Two clseS were found by State Courts
County of Yuba vs. Adams, Cal, 80. ane
GEORGES County VS.. Clark ct al, So Maryland
aJG. The first case distinctly shows that thu
Court entertained jurisdiction OF claim OF 6
county for lakes. The second annuls salt
made of proprrty for taxes because the prop
erty WIS in the hands of the Court. The de
cisiuns OF all OF the States of the Union and o
the Supreme Court OF the United States are
full of cases determining the validity Of 6
State tax or OF municipal taxes imposed un
der the authority Of the State assa bas
NOD only declared State tax so Imposed In
valid. II has also reversed the decision OF the
Court Of last resort OF the State sustaining the
tax. In this Court we find Hoge VS.. Railroad
I
Is Wall, 46O; Tomliuson VS.. Jessup, Is Wall
454--all cases seeking injunction against the
STATE auditor in the matter OF taxation. In
Savannah vs.. Jessup, lO3 U. s., 5GS, the Court
decided u tax of the city OF Savannah inval
id.
THE WAY THE ABBEvILLE CASE STANDS.
At the April term OF this Court, 1892, the
case OF the Richmond and Danrille Railroad
Company W.. j. X. Blake ct al, County treasu
rers and sheritts), involving the identical
questions raised in this case, was heard by @
full Bench and decided. The case came up on
pleadings selected by the defendants them
selves. Every question made as TO legality ol
the valuation made in this case and the dis
crimination and the right and duty OF the
Court 10 interfere therein was heard. The ex.
cess was pronounced void. This decision has
not been reversed. It has not been appealed
from. 1t Is an aut thority of great weight with
uS. Indeed, us there is yet an opportunity o1
reviewing IL in the Supreme Court, we would
at all events await the result Of such an ap-
peal When, therefore, the receiver comes in.
TO this Court and asks Instructions, predicat.
ing his action on the decision in this case, we
grant him relief by suspending the collection
of the tax until the presumption OF the
Besides this, we would not In this collateral
way on rule pass upon the question either
Of the validity or OF the invalidity Of this tax.
CAN'T INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY IN THE
HANDS OF THE COURT.
The only remaining question is as to the ia.
the property. BY the case OF Bound vs. the
Company, rs we have seen, all the
property OF the South Carolina Railway with
In this Slate came under the Jurisdiction OF
and 1t thus has Jurisdiction over the
entire subject matter, every part and parcel
thereof. All properly In the hands OF re-
ceiver is IN the custody OF the Court. No one,
whoever he may be, can interfere with II
without the sanction or permission of the
Court. Wlswall VS.. Sampson. IA How, SO.
THE sANCTIrY OF PROPERTY IN THE HANDS
OF THE coURT-IT CAN THEN EXTEND
ITS PROTECTION FOR ANY AMOUNT,
NO MATTER HOW SMALL.
The learned counsel, who replied for the
Sherifs with q frankness which does him
great credit, admitted the general rule as to
Iae sanctity OF property In the hands OF a
Court; and that when Jurisdiction has once
attached In this Circuit Court in the original
case 1t can extend Its protection TO property
even II its value be less than 81 900. He con-
tends that to this general proposition there Is
one exception, when The officers OF q State
come In and take the property for taxation
He argues that the taxing power Is high ex-
ercise OF sovereignty, and that to permit
Is to invade the sovereign right and to embar
rass the government. But we have seen that
Courts all over this country have entertained
cases involving the validity of a State tax, In
many cases imposed by the Legislature, and
In very many instances have declared the tax
Invalid of State Legislatures. in whom are
vested more OF the attributes OF sovereignty
than any other department OF the State gov
ern nments. There are many cases OF this kind
In the reports Of the Courts of Souih b Carolina.
In Hand W. Railroad Company, II South Car
olina, 22l, upon clai IN made by the State for
taxes upon property in the hands OF a receiv-
err, the Court examined into the validity OF
the claim and rejected II. In the very recent
rases of National Bank VS.. Cromer, 35 South
230; the State, eN rel, VS.. Boyd, 35
south Carolina, 2s3. the Supreme Court Of
the action OF the Comptroller General In
matter Of the assessment OF property for taxa
ton, and after examination set 1t aside. The
Court quotes with approval the language of
Moses, Ch. j.. in the State vs. County Treasu-
rers, South Carolina, $40: "The power TO tax
Is the most extensive and unlimited OF all the
powers which legislative body can exert. 1t
Is WHOM resH[aih. eSGspt oy on th
that can alone resist Its unlawful encroach-
ment would not only render uncertain the
tenure by which the citizen holds It's proper.
ty, but makes 1t tributary to the unrestrained
demands of the Legislature"
The language Of Miller, Justice. In United
States vs. Lee, LOG U. s. 200, Is not inappropri
ate: 1.-THE defence stands here solely upon
the absolute immunity from judicial inquiry
1To h0 &c o,,fh h0rif hn
executive branch OF the governmen however
clear 1t may be made that the executive pos
sessed no such power. Not only no such pow
er is giveI, hut IT Is absolutely prohibited, !,
WHEN THE COURT WILL INTERFERE - NO
DISREGARD OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN
PREVENTING UNJUST SEIZURE.
1t Is not claimed that the State, in order to
obtain payment Of Its taxes, must come into
Court by petition and get an order for 1t. On
the contrary, as has beer said, the paramount
right Of the State has always been and is ac-
X nowledged, recognized and faithfully pre-
served. Without any Interference whatever
on her part her priority Is maintained and
observed. But when persons assuming TO act
in the name OF the State seize upon, without
notice, and assert exclusive possession Of
in the hands OF the receiver and un-
der the protection of this Court, and whilst SO
TO act take property greatly In ex-
cess OF the sum claimed, the Court must and
will interfere.
IF THE HIGHER COURT FINDS THAT THE AS.
sEssMENT IS JUST THE TAKES WILL BE
PAID WITH PLEASURE.
At the hearing number OF affidavits were
read. Going TO the Issue was this legal tax ?
Upon q rule OF this kind 1t Is not competent
for us to 90 into this question. 1t must be
made in direct proceeding. Such proceed
ings are already on file In this Court. We re-
cognize that the question has not been finally
decided and for this reason our Injunction
goes only until further order. II testimony