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


As society becomes more and moro com.
pick, aud interests become more and
more inierlaced the value end necessity
of equity's preventive remedies become
greater. But Just AS their benetioent
Ecssiniiities have increased in con-
sequence OF the magnitude of the evils
TO be avorted by their Legitimate use,
so in rXact proportion has tho possible
mischief Increased TINT may be caused
by their illegitimate use.
The English and American Equitable
Jurisprudence Is unique system,
complex Interviewing OF principle and
precedent, OF reason and experience.
It Inns progressed by slow and careful
steps guided always by careful OBJ
serrdtion of the practical consequences
OF what had Eeen doEe already. And
in no department has the adherence to
precedent been so marked, in no sphere
of action does it behoo,e the equity
Judge to he so careful Ito keep within
the ancient mere-stones" as when
welding the tremendous power of the
injunction process.
The hill, in this cause prays for an
injunction to restrain the collection
from the complainant, the Equitable
Guarantee and Trust Co., either in its
individual or fldutiary capacity, of
purely personal tax, which. in part at
least, is State tax. The legality OF
tho tax is questioned solely on the
ground of the upconstitutionality of
the law under the authority OF which
| it has been laid and apportioned. No
question of fraud is raised or of in
! Justice Or irregularity in the assess
ment.
1t is conceded that there is remedy
at law in this State 10 recover back
any illegal tax after compulsory pay
ment, as was stated by Chancellor
salisbury in the case already cited,
the r., W. & B. Railroad Co. vs..
| Patrick Neary, collector. &C., Della
ware Chancery, 610, but complainant
alleges that the remedy ut law is in
adequate, because it holds and adj
ministers the Office of trustee or
guardian in approximately 100 cases
that if it should pay to the re-
spondent, the said collector, the tax
demanded in each case, and bring suit
for the recovery thereof in each, the
costs, fees and expenses necessarily in
Cured as plaintiff in the ,aige ma
jority of cases would amount TO more
than the sum claimed as taxes, and
moreover it would be subjected to a
multiplicity Of suits on the part of its
beneticiaries in consequences of such
payments, it having been ''already
notified that actions will be instituted
by some of said beneficiaras if it shal
diminish the funds in its hands as
fiduciary by such payments.
These are the sole grounds suggested
in the bill, or seriously urged by
| -, fnh ,,,tH
diction in the cause, and in consider
examine in detail the conflictins
American decisions cited as they ar,
easily grouped and very few are realll
relevant TO the precise question pre-
sented.
In the case of Fellows and anothe
, VS.. Spaulding ct al. IA Mass, 9
Martin, Q. j. dismissed a bill il
equity filed by the assignees in in
, solvency of Lewis killam, agaIns
, SpauIding, Lewis Killam, the in
solvent debtor, and 81 other defendant
! to restrain certain proceedings at la,
: in order to prevent multiplicity Q
: suits. The lea, ned Chief Justice, il
. his opinion Diminishing the bill, use
Q the following language such bi
is addressed to the discretion of tn
o Court Of Equity, and will not b
f entertained unless it Appeals there is
o practical necessity for the interpositio
# of the court to prevent vexatious lit
Q CATION. "
d 'The same questions of law al
j. raised in each case, and there is r
a reason why one suit in the usuI
II course of proceedings in solyency, tt
1T other cases being continued to abit
u the result, should not settle all Il
y cases. ?"
y In the case of Pacific Express q
is Vs. Seibert A Federal Reporter, q
It which was bill in equity for an il
n junction to restrain the collection of
Of tax, Caldwell, j. in the course of
is Icing and able opinion Diminishing ii
I'd bill said, Multiplicity of suits haviI
D. also been urgently urged upon the cou
I'd as ground of jurisdiction in the cas-
re it Is proper to consider that question.
fy at is real and not imaginary suit
re il is probable and not possible dang
of multiplicity of suits, that will wa
ne rant the assumption of jurisdiction
s. that ground. While it is true, as Il
" plaintiff contends, that the State mig
OF bring a separate suit for each day
al penalty, the court would hardly be iu
st it would do so. The State is not to
as looked upon in the light of barratt
to and the court will not impute to it,
he to its officers acting for and in
or name, litigious and vindiotise spir
ly OF purpose nesdlessly to vex a
he harrass the citizen with law suits.
er Whatever the rule may be in the CO
c- of natural persons the court will p
ed sumo that State is incapable of su
a vulgar passion, and, until the fact
o. shown to he otherwise, will act on t
de assumption that State will not bri
,se any more suits than are fairly necesss
hit to establish and maintain its rights
,os 1t is entirely unnecessary to cite otf
hit authorities in support of the pIopo
he ton above stated, that lit is real a
ID, not imaginary suits, it is probable a
ro- not possible danger of multiplicity
i've suits, that will warrant the assumpti
rs, OF jurisdiction on that ground
TT because it is the postulate Of every "
by considered decision, assuming jul
,rd diction on that ground. 1t is proI
ror sition involved in any complete sta
81; ment of the reasons for the jurisdicti
ant The case in controversy is clos
IL, analogous in this respect to the
last cited. The collection Of the
of demanded of the complainant in its
his dividual capacity, or of single one
on the taxes claimed from it in its fiduci
gi- capacity, would enable the complain
the to avail itself of the legal remedy,
the by single action in the Super
ion Court test the constitutionality of
disputed act. Nay more, the lie
lIs, remedy is peculiarly eSpeditious