Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-09-08

future, anu snOulu Ue pTeSeuttu anew
with equal vim and energy.
Observation-Disclosures N
ting as @ court of chancery has the
power or jurisdiction to enjoin the col
lection Of this Territorial tax which
was regularly levied under an Act OF
the Territorial Legislature, while fct-
ing within its general powers granted
by Congress. Can this be done even II
such Act is unconstitutional and void?
| do not think II can. II certainly can
not be done If there is an adequate
at law; and IL seems clear to
the court that in this case there is a
complete and adequate remedy at law.
One of the chief reasons given for
equitable relief IN this case is the
avoidance Of multiplicity of suits;
that each of the compliments would
be obliged in the event that he were to
pay the tax under protest upon the
ground that the same was illegal, to
bring an action for the recovery Of the
sum so paid: or that in the event that
each of the complaints refused to
pay the taxes each would be subjected
to a suit by the Tax Collector and AS.
SCISSOR Tor the collection OF the same,
all OF which might, as 1t rs claimed, be
avoided by the determination OF the
question Of the legality Of the tax by
a court Of equity.
Multiplicity Of Suits.
But is the multiplicity of suits that
compliments claim may be avoided by
this court taking action, such multi
plicity as is contemplated in equity?
No one OF these complainants would
be subjected to more than one suit.
either upon a refusal to pay or a pay.
ment under protest and a consequent
suit to recover. This principle is stat
ed most succinctly and clearly in the
case of Dodd VS.. Hartford, % Conn.
1872, 23S, a case in which a Joint peti.
tion was fled to RESTRAIN the collection
from several complainanJs VI sewer
assessments made upon their LANDS
severally, and which were claimed 10
be illegal; the court there saying.
"The multiplicity Of quits which the
petitioner seeks TO avoid does not IN.
juriously affect any one If The petition.
ers. No one of them has occasion to
expect any such multiplicity of suits
affecting himself. One suit is all that
any one OF them has to fear, and the
object OF this bill would seem to be 10
relieve these parties severally from
that one suit. and to consolidate the
unprecedented litigation. In other words
to enforce a consolidation rule by
means of the extraordinary powers of
the courts of chancery. II the assess.
ment were against one person only, II
is not Claimed that he could transfer
from court of law to a court OF equi,
| ty the question of his liability. But
how is the condition OF any one OF
these petitioners the worse, because
others are assessed for the same i'm.
proyement?"
The court saying further: ut would
Undoubtedly be convenient to try the
questions relating TO these warrants in
one comprehensive lawsuit. But Il
does not seem to the court that the
case presented by the bill Is one OF
such irreparable injury or of made.
quate relief at law os to warrant us In
taking 1t away from the legal trfbu
mails" See also Cooley, on Taxation,
page SAC.
Chief Justice Fuller. "...
In the case of Arkansas Building AS,
ISOLATION VS.. Madden. IT'S U. S. 272
Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller said: "Ths
rule is that the collection OF taxes
under State authority will not be en-,
Joined by court Of the United States
on the sole ground that the tax is lille.
gal; but It must appear that the party
taxed has no adequate remedy by the
ordinary processes of law, and that
there are special circumstances bring,
ing the case within some recognized
head of equity jurisdiction" Pittsburg
& c. Ry. VS.. Board of Public Works,
172 U, S. 80; Shelton VS.. Plat, 1879 U.
s. Sol; BOWS VS.. Chicago. IL Wall.
10S, 1l2.
And the court say ing further in the
said case OF Arkansas Building Asso.
citation VS.. Madden, supra, that: "On
principle, the interference of the
courts OF the United States by injunc-
ton with the collection of State taxes
|. can only be justified in a plain