The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-08-09
INCOME TAX CASE
WAS DISMISSED
SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO
GRANT INJUNCTION.
Holds That Taxpayer Is Provided
With Different Method in Max
ing Payment.
The State, 8th.

The State, 8th.
The supreme court has decided that
the petition for an injunction to pre-
vent the collection of income tax
from a taxpayer in Laurens county
shall be dismissed and that should the
taxpayer desire to protest against the
payment Of this tax there is a proce-
dure provided by law, which the Pc
titioner did not follow.
The test of the income tax laws:
which it was proposed to bring b;
Mr.. J. O. C. Flemming, taxpayer OF
Laurens county, was one Of the most
important cases argued by the attor-
ney general at the last term Of court
and for the present, at least, is a de-
ci3ed victory for the state, although
not passed uopn by the court. The
decision was written by Chief Justice
Pope and owing to its Importance is
given in full as follows:
This is an application by the petit
toner, J. 0. C. Flemming, to this
court, in its original jurisdiction, for
writ of injunction against the re-
spondent, as auditor Of Laurens eoun-
ty, to ;enjoin him from proceeding un-
der an act Of the general assembly en-
titled can act to raise revenue for
the support of the state government
by the levy and collection of tax on
ineomes," approved the 5th day OF
March, 1897, ana now incorporated
in the code Of laws Of South Carolina,
1902, volume 1, as sections 325, to 33l
inclusive, to assess and charge against
The petitioner tax Of 1 per cent. on
each dollar Of his income over and
above. the SUM Of $500, to wit, the
sum Of $50, and from adding thereto
so per cent thereof asa penalty for
petitioner s. failure to make a return
of his income. A rule to show cause
having been granted the cause was
heard by this court upon the facts
stated in the petition, and in the an
swer and return Of the respondent.
Therei no dispute in regard to mat
ters Of fact. The questions in issue
are questions Of law.
However interesting the merits OF
the case might be this court will not
consider them. It is well settled that
where there is an adequate remedy
at law courts of equity will not inter
fere. Therefore, in this case if petl-
toner has an adequate remedy at law
the injunction Will not issue. Sec-
ton 4l3 Of the civil code provides:
3'In all cases in which any county,
state, or other taxes are now or shall
be hereafter charged upon the books
of any county treasurer Of the state
against any person, and such treasur-
er shall claim the payment of the tax
es so charged, or shall take any step
or proceeding to collect the same, the
person against whom such taxes are
charged. or against whom such step
or proceeding shall be taken, shall, II
he conceives the same to be UNJUST
or illeged for any cause, pay the SAID
taxes Notwithstanding, under protest,
in such funds or moneys as the SAID
comfy treasurer shall be authorized
to receive by the act Of the general
assembly levying the same; and upon
such payment being made, the said
county treasurer shall pay the taxes
50 collected into the state treasury,
giving notice at the same time to the
comptroller general that the payment
was made under protest; and the
person so paying said taxes may at
anv time within 80 days after making
such payment, but not afterwards
bring an action against the said coun-
tv treasurer for the recovery thereof
in the court Of common pleas for the
county in which said taxes are pay
able: and if it be determined IN SAID
action that such taxes were wrongful
" or illegally collected, for any reason
Going to the merits, then the court
before whom the case is tried shall
certify of record that the same were
wrongfully collected and ought to be
refunded, and thereupon the eomptrol-
Ter general shall issue his warrant Tor
the refunding Of the taxes so paid,
which shall be paid in preference to
other claims against the treasury
Provided, That the county treaSurers