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

granted by statute of the State whose
levy of taxes was drawn In question.
In the course of his opinion, the
Chief Justice refers to the Act of Con.
gress for bidding suit for the purpose OF
restraining the assessment or collection
OF taxes under the internal revenue
laws, in respect of which the Supreme
Court held that the remedy by suit to
recover back the tax after payment,
provided for by the statute. was ex-
elusive (Snyder vs.. Marks, 100 U. B.,
1897, and says Legislation Of this
character has been called for by the
embarrassments resulting from the I'M.
provident employment of tie writ OF
Injunction 10 arresting the collection
Of the public revenue; and even in its
absence the strong arm Of tho Court OF
Chancery ought not to be interposed in
that direction except where resort to
that court is grounded upon the settled
principles which govern its juris-
diction."
In Youngblood VS.. Sexton, 81 Mich,
4OS, Judge Cooley delivering the
opinion of the court, said: sit was de-
cided at an early day in this State,
that equity had no jurisdiction to re-
STRAIN the collection of personal tax,
even conceding it to be illegal. The
principle has ever since been regarded
as not open to controversy in this
State. He adds: SIN other States it is
supported by strong prepondeerance OF
authority" and cites the following cases
which are those usually cited in any
discussion of the subject.
Brewer VS.. Springfield, 81 Mass. {,
1852; Durant vs.. Eaton, 9s Mass, Ago
Loud vs.. Charleston, 80 Mass, 20S;
Whiting VS.. Moston, 106 Mass, 80;
Hunnewell vs.. Charlestown, LOG Mass. Z,
$50; Rockingham Savings Bank vs..
Portsmouth, 50 N. H., II; Dodd vs..
Hartford, Is Conn, 2a2; Ritter VS..
Patch, IL CAL, 29s; Berri vs.. Patch,
- CAL, 299; Worth vs. Fayetteville,
Whist. Eq. IN. O. 70; Van Colt vs..
Supervisors, IS Wis, 247; Greene vs..
Mumford, S r. l., 472; Mccoy VS..
Chillicothe, 3 Ohio, 80; Connolly vs..
Chedie, 6 New, 322; Deane W. Todd,
% Mo-, 90; Sayre VS.. Tompkins, q
Mo-, 443; Barrow VS.. Davis, 46 Mo-,
394; McPike VS.. Pew, 4S Mo-, 525
Brooklyn VS.. Meserole, 26 Wend., 1872
Intendant vs.. Pippin, 81 Ala, 542
, Baltimore vs.. Baltimore & Ohio Rail
/ road Co., q Nd, 80; Dows vs. Chi
, cago, IL Wall, 1903; Hannewinkle vs.
Georgetown, ID Wall, 547.
, A thorough examination of the case
/ in which the collection Of a tax is re
, strained by injunction will disclose tn
| fact, that in most of thensit is mum
| cipal taxes or assessments constituting
, a lien upon the real estate which ar
, restrained, and that whore an injunction
> Is granted on the ground of preventing
. multiplicity of suits, it is general
} In the case of taxes or assessments mad
lien upon land where sthe suit ]
brought by or on behalf Of all the 10
0 owners affected by the lien.
: Mr.. High collects a multitude @
cases in q long and interesting review
of the general question of the use @
: injunction against taxes, and when h
{ comes to treat OF personal taxes, sum
: marizes as follows: "As regards tb
! question Of equitable relief against
n tax which is levied upon or sought
|, be collected out of personal property
: the we'll established doctrine of unifori
and general recognition is, that equit
o will not interfere by injunction to re
8 strain a levy upon or sale of personi
a property in satisfaction OF a tax whic
Il Is alleged to be illegal.
n EVEN in those States which hav
Il inclined to depart from the generi
q doctrine denying relief in equity again
k an illegal tax; the courts, while col
g tending for the jurisdiction in cas-,
y affecting the title to real estate, neve
Ii thsless refuse to interfere where on
1T personal property is involved and lea,
10 the parties aggrieved TO their remee
N at law"
ia While there Is no doubt that tax COL
10 troversies may arise in this State fro
10 time to time, where special circun
u stances may be shown to exist whit
70 will bring them under some wsll-eettle
ii principle of equity jurisdiction, al
st require the interposition of the stroI
ct arm of the Court of Chanoery, the
or cases must be judged and the primo
ct rles controlling the action of this cou
a in regard to them must be announc,
rt as they come before it.
in In the case now before me, l a
az unable to discover such special circuI
Is stances as are necessary to Justify l
in assuming jurisdiction, - and q
m constrained to decide that the mott
is to dismiss the bill for want of jur
ys diction must be granted.
-