Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-03-11
ClAYMONT MUST PAY
ADDITIONAL TAX LEVY
TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Continued from page 10.

rant an application TO amend by aver
ring the tax 10 have been assessed
against such property. Nothing.
therefore. would be gained by basing
my decision on the assumption that
the tax might. for all that the bill
shows. have been assessed against
personal property.
The court Of last resort in This
state IN the case of Murphy V. City OF
Wilmington. Houst. los, and this
court IN the cases of y. w. & y. r. II.
Co. V. Neary. Del. Oh. 600. Equitable.
&c, Co. V. Donahoe. s Del. Oh. 422, and
Cats V. Town OF Smyrna. 10 Del. Oh.
26S. have had occasion to consider as
poets of the question Of where and
under what circumstances equity has
Jurisdiction TO restrain the collection
OF taxes, or dues, assessed by authority
OF law, at the suit OF the taxpayer
/ Those cases contain within their rul-
| ings principles sufficiently applicable
I 10 govern this case. Those OF them
that deny to the complainant the
/ equitable relief sought, proceeded on
the familiar principle that whore there
Is an adequate and sufficient remedy
at law equity will not intervene. The
mere fact that tax is Illegal and void
Is not in itself enough to invoke the
aid OF the extraordinary powers OF
equity for its suppression. The case
must come under some one OF the
recognized heads OF equity Jurisdiction.
as was said by the Court OF Errors
and Appeals in Murphy V. City OF Will
mington. supra. II by reason Of the
tax and It's threatened collection a
cloud Is cast upon the title 10 real
estate, or irreparable injury, or a
multiplicity OF suits Is threatened. or
as Is Indicated in the case Just cited
possibly II the complainant's title IL
purely an equitable one and not
cognizable in court OF law, then
cases are presented over which equity
following the beaten path OF it's pre-
cedents, may take jurisdiction But
unless there be some circumstance In
the case bringing It within the domain
of recognized equity jurisdiction. III,
extraordinary powers Of the court vii
not Zoe released TO the interruption o.
the public revenues and the conse.
quent confusion of public business.
I'm i. w. g. p. r. h. Co V. Neary
supra, which was bill to restrain tn,
collection OF tax. the Chancellor
after expressing views in harmon,
with the foregoing. restrained juris
diction because OF tho stipulation fileS
/ bringing the case within that clasi
of cases where the prevention OF &
multiplicity OF suits is the ground o.
, Jurisdiction
, In Equitable. &c. Co. V. Donahoe
supra. which was a case seeking I,
restrain the collection OF a persona
tax. the Chancellor. after holding tina
the case was not sustainable as on,
! TO prevent of a multiplicity of suits
dismissed the bill.
E In Murphy " City OF Wilmington
supra, which was case of an alleges
Illegal assessment laid upon real estat
: for the construction of a public sewer
/ the Court Of Errors and Appeals sus
! tanned the decree of the Chancelio
Q dismissing the bill. Though II wa
= urged that the assessment constitute,
cloud ON the title, yet the court hel,
that, If the assessment were Illegal a
8 commended. 1t was an illega,ity appear
Y ing on the face OF the proceedings
s and not dehors the record, and bein
: such equity had no jurisdiction TO re
= strain the collection of the assessment
. The compiainants were RENTED t
8 law for their remedy.
I'm Cats V. Town OF Smyrna
$ supra, the Chancellor. following tn