Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-02-15

the determination in the law courts of
the question OF tue legality Of the tax,
the collection OF which it seeks to have |
| njolned.
Even il 1t should he conceded, there .
| fore, that the complainant is correct in ,
the contention that tho multiplicity of |
suits shown tc be- possible is of such |
nature and between such parties as
would constitute a ground of equitable |
jurisdiction, the considerations already |
advanced would be sufficient to necessi'
tate the adverse determination of the
question of jurisdiction.
But that contention is not conceded.
I have taken infinite pains in the ex-
animation Of the multitude Of Ameri-
can authorities where equitable juris-
diction has been assumed "to prevent a
multiplicity of suits," that are cited
by the writers Of treatises to which
counsel for complainant have referred,
and, as | have before intimated, there
are in the number, cases which COM
are considered to be fundamental by
all the authorities held by the Court of
Chancery of Delaware tc be of controll-
ing influence IN this jurisdiction.
would be invading the province of
the treatise writer, however, ii l were
to attempt to review ard analyze them;
! and the lengthy discussion required for
an adequate consideration of the scope
of the equitable jurisdiction to prevent
multiplicity of suits would not be
justified in case like the present in
which it is not necessary in order to
arrive at a decision.
1t is quite sufficient for me to state
the particular conclusions necessary for
( the decision of this case, without max
ing statements defining and limiting
r the scope and meaning of the doctrine
which statements might after all be
considered only obiter dicta.
The only case cited which feel my
t self called upon to discuss at any length,
: is that of Cummings vs. National Bank,
: 101 u. s.. ,lo3. This is the case mainly
r relied upon by complainant's counsel,
(; and is the only one that sufficiently
: resembles the case before me to suggest
K the propriety of distinguishing 1T. In
t that case the court enjoined the treas
Q tIrer of Lucas county, Ohio, from COL
: Letting tax wrongfully assessed against
= the shares of the stockholders, pay
Q ment of which was demanded of the
q bank. The statute of the State of
a Ohio expressly declared that suits
$ might be brought to enioin the illegal
b levy of taxes and assessments, or the
y collection of them. OF the effect of
d this statute, Justice Miller, in his
II opinion, says: "There can be no doubt
IS that the remedy by injunction against
an illegal tax, expressly granted by
d the statute, Is to be enforced, and can
y only be appropriately enforced on the
3 equity side of the court. The statute
= also answers another objection made to
% the relief sought in this suit, namely,
| 80 will min tho D,llop.
70 tion of a tax except under some of tue
y we'll known heads of equity jurisdic'
B. ton, among which is not mere over.
valuation, or the illegally of the tax,
Or or in any case where there is an AIDE
% quate remedy at law. The statute o.
In Ohio expressly provides for an injuno
a. tion against the collection of tax il
st legally assessed, as we'll as for an actor
D. to recover back such tax when paid
is showing clearly an intention to author
W ize both remedies in such cases."
of Here is the explicit statement of thu
in learned Judge that the statute answer
ID the obvious objection 10 the equitable
ia jurisdiction of the court In view 0
he this statement the other REASONS giyei
be by him for granting equitable relic
are of the nature of obiter dicta. HI
on says, sin paying the money the banl
il is acting in o fduciary capacity a
agent for the stookholders-au ageno
re created by the statute of the State.
no 1t pays an unlawful tax assessed agains
lal its stockholders, they may resist th
he right of the bank to COLLECT it froI
de them. The bank as corporation
he not liable for the tax, and occupies tn
position of stakeholder, on whom tn
Il. should not fall. II it pays, 1t may l.
IN, subjected to separate suit by eac
a shareholder. If it refuses, it mus
a either withhold dividends, and subiee
he itself to litigation by doing so, c
no refuse to obey the laws, and subiet
,rt itself to suit by the State. 1t holds
a. trust relation which authorizes ooui
. i of equity to see that it is protected
ia. the exercise of the duties appertainin
ser to it. To prevent multiplicity of sui
ar equity may interfere.
on 1t is in no respect incumbent upo
the me for the purpose of deciding tn
,ht case to oriticise in any way the view
US expressed by Judge Of the Supren
u.s. Court of the United States IN regai
nat to its equitable jurisdiction In tt
be State of Ohio, over tax controverl
or, between county treasurer and
or national bank. / only quote b
its language in order to note the radio
rit, difference in the cases, the absen,
ind from the case before me Of both ii
grounds alleged as reasons, outside.
ase the express statutory authority, 4
RE- the jurisdiction of the court in Il
lch Ohio case. There the bank occupi,
+ is 1.-THE position Of a stakeholder I
the whom the costs and trouble Of Il
ing litigation should not fall" Here it
airy the duty of the complainant, either
S." trustee or guardian to sift, examin
her pay or litigate every claim or DENIAL
osi- that at any time may be made again
and their beneficiaries or wards, IN respe
and to their funds in its custody. That
, of one of the chief duties OF guardi
lion or trustee and for its services it 1
d." ceives compensation, for the sake
we'll which compensation, in part, it uhdt
ris- takes to act as trustee or guardian.
po- There it is conceded that the t
ate against all the shareholders must
ion. paid in a lump sum, IL paid at all, a
sely that multiplicity of suits would
one instituted against it by its shal
tax holders. Here the contrary is, as
in have seen, the correct presumption
9 of the court.
larry Another Ohio case was decided
,ant the same time by the same cou
and identical in its nature, and these +
rior Supreme Court cases have been 4
the lowed by United States Circuit Cou
egal in several national bank tax cont
and yersies in other States. The case cit