Evening journal., 1922-03-11

/
I proof In each instance outside OF
/ the registration book circum-
stance not consonant with the gem
| eral theory OF the registration law.
/ L. 10 reasonable. therefore. 10 sup
| pose that the registration act was
meant to apply to school elections?
shall not iengthen this opinion
with an analysis Of the general reg
istration act for the purpose OF
showing why by It's own terms %
cannot be said that Il Is impliedly
apphcabl 60 school elections In this
State. A careful reading OF It's pro-
visions indicates clearly that it was
never intended 10 apply 20 such cleo
tlons.
l hold that a qualified voter"
within the meaning OF the school
law (Chapter 100. Volume 80. Laws
Of Delaware does not mean a reg
'sierod voter" under the constitution
and laws Of this State.
The seventy-eight voters who arc
said not to have been qualified 20
vote at the school election az Clay
mont. having no disqualification
other than the alleged one OF not
being registered, were entitled.
therefore 10 have their votes count
ed. This being so. the motion TO dis
charge the rule should be granted
and the demurrer TO the bill should
be sustained.
II was also urged that the court
is without jurisdiction. Az was lsaid
az the outset. this objection should
logically be disposed OF first For
II sustained. the other objection
need not be considered Notwith-
standing. think the objection TO
the jurisdiction is well taken.
nevertheless. IN view OF the lmmed-
late importance Of the main ques-
tion. deemed u best TO state my
views with respect thereto. The
more was I inclined 20 pursue this
course. because II the complainant
should desire TO appeal to the SUI
preme Court. ne can. In case the
? Supreme Court should sustain the
Jurisdiction. then secure a final de-
cision on the main question.
Il is well 10 again mention the
fact that the tax complained against
is not averred 20 have been assessed
against real estate Nor is IL averred
p TO have been assessed against per-
sonal property. The bill and It's ex-
! | n bits fall TO disclose the nature Of
4 the property assessed. Solicitors for
Inc complainant. however. argued
the case on the theory that the
nleadings present a case Of a tax
assessed on real property. Though
1 this assumption Is erroneous. yet
u
/ that the facts would warrant an APP
- pllcation 10 amend by averrlng the
tax TO have been assessed against
p such property Nothing. therefore
s. would be gained by basing my de-
p cision on the assumption that the
- tax might. for all that the bill
Z shows. have been assessed against
o. personal property.
o. The court OF last resort IN this
a State IN the case OF Murphy W
q city OF Wilmington, 6 Houst. los
II and this court IN the cases 70 p. W
'r & 3. r. r. Co. vs.. Neary. 8 Dc
70 Oh. 500. Equitable. &C. vs.. Donahus
n Del Ch. 422. and Cats vs.. Tow
Of Smyrna. 10 Del. Ch. 263, hav
10 had occasion 10 consider aspects q
pr what circumstances equity has jurls
'e diction to restrain the collection q
n taxes. or dues. assessed by author
l. ity OF law. AZ the suit OF the tax
V mayer. Those cases contain withi
+ their rulings principles sufficient
o applicable 10 govern this case
A. Those OF them that deny TO tn
- complainant the equitable relic
'e sought. proceeded on the familia
j. principle that where there Is an ade
- auate and sufficient remedy at Law
equity will not intervene. The mer
Is fact that a tax Is illegal and vol
n Is not IN itself enough to lnvok
a the aid Of the extraordinary power
e OF equity for its suppression. Tn
i- case mus, come under some on
n Of the recognized heads Of equit
.- jurisdiction" as was said by tn
is Court Of Errors and Appeals O.
IS Murphy vs.. City OF Wilmington
T. supra. II by reason of the tax AM
n its threatened collection cloud
e cast upon the title to real estate. o
A. irreparable injury. or a multlplicit
4 OF suits is threatened. or, as L. In
Pc dicnted in the case just cited. posi-
rs hlv II the complainant's title is pure
N ~ an equitable one and no
I. ,,T7izable in court
AZ law. then cases are presente
s- over which equity, following TN
s. beaten path Of its precedents. ma
's take Jurisdiction. But unless ther
p he some circumstance in the cas-
" bringing it within the domain
recognized equity jurisdiction. the es
traordinary powers OF the court wi
= not he released to the interruptio
"A OF the public revenues and the cor
m sequent confusion Of public bushes
ne In p. W. & r. r. r. Co. vs.. Near
T. supra, which was a bill 10 restrai
TO the collection OF tax. the Chance
IN Tor. after expressing views In hai
In mony with the foregoing. retaine
ls Jurisdiction because OF the stipul'
A. ton filed bringing the case With
ne that class OF cases where the preveI
or tlon OF a multiplicity OF suits is n
a ground OF Jurisdiction.
ih In Equitable. &C. CO. Y. Donaho
=" supra. which was a case seeking
p restrain the collection OF a person
IA tax. the Chancellor. after holdii
a. that the case was not sustainable
n one to prevent OF a multiplicity
- suits dismissed the bill