The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-10-13

in the Case Involving h
States Power to Tax Federal Of
GERS
Especial to The Messenger.)

- ~ AiS AhSSSNiSNi<
Raleigh. N. c., October 9.-There was
argument yesterda in the supreme
court in the case involving the states
power to tax the income of Fedora
Judge Purnell, derived from salary. The
lower court decided against the judge
and in favor of the corporation commits
sion and the sheriff of this county.
The brief from the defendant appel
liant court ave this statement Of the
case. This is a cause in equity wherein
the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the collec-
ton of the income tax assessed against
him and alleges
CD. That the tax is illegal in hat it
is a tax Upon his salary as a United
States judge and
(2). That he has no sufficient remedy
at law.
The defendant demurs to the COM
plant and says that the court should
not grant the injunction for that
% The plaintiff has alleged no cause
why the court in equity should grant
relief, and
O h tax complained OF is in all re-
spects legal and valid.
Ah- SAANAiN SS ~ 49, - NAoIA "A'
that; courts of equity will not interfere
by injunction to restrain collection of
tax because it is illegal or invalid, but
there must exist in addition special cir
cumstances bringing the ease under
some we'll recognized head of equity
Jurisprudence.
High on injunctions SO.
Shelton VS.. Plat 139 T.. S. 591.
Judson on taxation 531.
Dows VS.. Chicago, IL WAL. los.
Cooley on taxation 761, $50, 53S.
Desty or taxation Gel.
Arkansas Building Association VS..
Madden 175 L. S. 279.
Allen vs.. Pullman Car Company 139
L. S. 65S.
Pittsburgh &c. Railway VS.. Board Of
Public Works 172 US. 80.
BroadnaX VS.. Groom 81 n. c. PA.
Worth VS.. The Commissioners 60 n.
C. els.
Section 80 chapter 55S of the Laws Of
1901 certainly was not intended to make
such a radical innovation upon the pro-
cedure in the courts of Equity as con-
tended for by the plaintiff, and the only
reasonable construction that can be put
upon this section is that the courts Of
equity cal restrain the collection Of il
legal or invalid taxes when there exists
special circumstances to bring the case
under some Well recognized head of
Equity Jurisprudence.
This the plaintiff attempts to do in the
5th paragraph of his complaint (print-
ed record page 81 wherein he alleges
that he has no adequate or sufficient
remedy at law. But section 80 chapter
55S, laws of 1901, in terms gives to him
ar adequate and complete remedy at
law. and this has been expressly de-
cided by this court in Railroad VS.. Lewis
SO n. C. IS.
This right of the court Of equity to
interfere only when some special cir
cumstances are shown to bring the case
within the jurisdiction of the court of
equity IS not discussed in Range Co. vs..
Carver rs \. c. 331. nor in Armstrong
vs. Stedman $50 \. c. 217.
AS to the validity Of the tax the state
claims that Section 80. Chapter S, Pub
lie Laws of 1901. Ievies a tax Of one per
cent. "on all gross incomes and the
plaintiffs income i certainly taXable
under this section. unless it IS exempt
by reason Of the TACT a. that he s an
agency OF the federal government. or
CD that this tax would diminish his
salary.
There is q distinction between salary
and income. or rather between salary
due. or TO become due. and salary paid,
which by such payment has become
part of the general capital 4 property
of the citizen. and a part of the general
mass of the property of the state, and
on this general income which the law
making power has seen fit TO levy a
tax. the plaintiff should pay mis- tax just
as any other citizen.