Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1922-06-13

ings for collection. Congress has de-
termined that FIVE years after the
due day OF the return Is reason
able time 10 bring TO an end the
right 10 collect.
on the other hand, Congress has
placed a limitation upon the tax
payer by the provisions OF section
2B2 OF the act OF 1921 as 20 claims
for taxes paid in excess OF those law
fully due. II the plaintiff pays the
amount demanded. no remedy at law
is left open TO him for the recovery
OF such excess.
II a suit were begun against the
taxpayer after the running OF the
statute OF limitations. he could as
sert as a defense the various grounds
urged in support OF the present bill.
But, II the collector should proceed
10 seize and sell the plaintiffs prop
erty. he would be deprived OF any
remedy excepting a suit at law
against the collector. Meanwhile,
his freehold and property would
have been subject TO seizure and sale
and his remedy at law would not
adequately repair such injury.
As was said in ogden City vs..
Armstrong. 16S L. s. 224.
In Union Pacific Railway VS.
Cheyenne. 113. L. s. SIS. 535. this
court, through Mr.. Justice Bradley.
said:
But II Is contended that the COM
plainant should have sought a rem
edy at law and not In equity. II can
not be denied that bills In equity 10
restrain the collection OF taxes IL
legally imposed have frequently been
sustained. But Il Is well settled that
there ought TO be some equitable
ground FOR relief besides the mere IL
legality OF tho tax; for II must be
presumed that the law furnishes
remedy for illegal taxation. Il often
happens. however. that the case Is
such that the person Illegally taxed
would suffer irremediable damage.
or to be subjected TO vexatious liti-
CATION, II he were compelled TO re-
sort to his legal remedy alone. For
example. II the legal remedy CON
sisted only OF an action TO recover
back the money after II had been .
collected by distress and sale OF the {
taxpayers lands the loss OF his free
hold by means OF tax would be a
mischief hard to be remedled Even |
the cloud cast upon his title by a tax /
under which a sale could be made |
would be a grievance which would 4
entitle him to go into a court OF
equity for relief"
The language OF Mr.. Justice
Bradley applies aptly to the sltua-
lion In the instant case. While
Section 1924 has been strictly con-
strued in view OF the remedial sys-
.em providing for remedies OF the
AK payer against the imposition OF
Illegal taxes following Mr. Justice
comprehensive discus
zion OF the subject in Snyder VS.
100 U. S. 1879. Congress has
llnce added TO the system the limita- I.
ion contained in the Act OF 1921 |
md reading these new provisions in
with Section 1924, I can
not conceive that Congress intended
he tax payer 20 he rigidly held 10
he inhibitions Of Section 1924 II the
effect should be TO nullify the inhi-
JlAlbuN dkAlIsL the olllttIN VI the
revenue contained in the later
statutes and thus to subject the tax
payer to proceedings by distraint
leaving him an adequate
at law. after the limitation
had run against the collectors right
TO begin such proceeding. II would
be contrary to equity TO hold that,
where no remedy is available at law,
equity will fail to afford relief.
The views herein expressed are
deemed sufficient TO support a pre-
liminary injunction without going
into a discussion of other contentious
raised by the bill. The motion to
dismiss Is denied.
A preliminary injunction may Is
sue restraining the defendant from
by distraint or attempt
ing to collect by distraint the taxes
claimed. without. however. including
therein restraint against collection
by suit. An appropriate decree may
be prepared by counsel.