Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-01-30

10 operate.
. at is a matter Of common knowledga
that the order Of the state board Of tax
commissioners, the enforcement OF which
the appellees are seeking, is part Of a
general order affecting every county in
the state and many Of the taxing units
in the several counties" the opinion, writ
ten by Judge McMahan, reads.
WOULD MAKE
VALUATIONS Low.
"If the contention Of appellees should
be sustained, it means that the order Is
void, not only in so far as it Affects
Washington township in Marion county
but as Is every county and almost every
taxing unit in the state. 1t means that
property assessed by the local tax off,
cials will, as a rule, be valued for taxa
tion much below the true cash value, while
the property assessed by the state tax
board will be assessed at it's true cash
value. 1t means widespread litigation
throughout the state; great curtailmenf
of revenue for state, county, town, town
ship, schools, hospitals, roads, bond pay
ments, in fact for all purposes of gov
ernment; irreparable injury and confusion
in the collection of taxes and the break
ing down Of the revenue system for the
year.
Should the decree of the trial court
be sustained, it means the revenue, not
only for state purposes, but for all local
government, including county, city, town.
township, roads, schools, hospitals.
bonds. sinking funds, library, park.
health and sanitation funds viii be de-
pleted: that deficits Of serious character
will occur, that bond obligations will be
defaulted, school terms cut short, roads
neglected methods for the protection Of
health and sanitation curtailed, and ali
processes of government, state and local
seriously interfered with. Confusion and
chaos in theIevying and collection Of
taxes viii follow"
MUST OBSERVE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.
The court contends that the injury suf,
fered by the appellees in the refusal tc
grant the injunction, when compared
and Balanced with the injury to the
public should the injunction granted by
the lower court be upheld, is not such
as calls for or justides court Of equity
in granting injunctive relief
The court points out that a court Of
equity IS never active in granting relief
which is against conscience or public con
venience.
The court cites a case in which an In
junction was sought to prevent the hold
| ing Of elections for members Of the gem
eral assembly. The court ruled in this
case that no citizen of the state had the
right to invoke injunctive power to dis
solve the state government
THAT the general trend is against the
use Of injunctive relief to stay the hands
of taxing officials is shown by the fac
that congress has enacted that no sui
for the purpose of restraining the assess
ment or collection ONT any taxes shall
be maintained in any COURT the opin-
ion says.
The court rules that the record before
it is not one calling for the interference
of court of equity to grant injunctive
relief on behalf of the appeIlees in their
own behalf or on behalf of the other tax
payers of the county.
1T follows from what we have said"
the court concludes, that appeIlees
should be left to their legal remedy and
that the decision of the court is con-
trary to law"
COMPLAINT HOLDS
BOARD is ILLEGAL.
In summarizing the case before it the
court said
THE complaint is based upon the
theory that the order of the state board
was illegal and void on account Of deal
ing separately with the several taxing
units within the county and of the classi-
fcation of the property upon which the
increase was ordered. The specific charge
being that the state board of tax COM
missiOners on Aug. %, 1919, ordered an
increase Of 90 per cent on all lands and
lots and 80 per cent on all improvements
in Washington township outside Of the
incorporated towns and cities, and an fn~
crease of 80 per cent on all the personal
property in the county, such increase on
the assessment of personal property not
applying to items on the first page OF
the personal property schedule, nor to
Item 1 on the second page of the per-
sonal property schedule, nor to Item I on
the second page of said schedule. The
items on Page 1, being annuities, bonds.
notes, accounts and similar items OF
credit. Item 1 on Page referred to
cash or money on hand or deposit.
From decree enjoining the appellant,
Leo K. Fesler, as county auditor, from
placing such increase on the tax duplt-
cate and enjoining the appellant, Edward
G. Sourbter, as treasurer, from collects
Ing or attempting to collect any taxes on
account of said increase, this appeal iai
prosecuted
'Appellees contend that the order oE
equalization, as made by the state board
Continued on Page NInetcen.1