Case Name: The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellants, v. The Board of Supervisors et al., Respondents
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1861-06-01
Citations: 8 Bosw. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellants, v. The Board of Supervisors et al., Respondents.
Judges: (Before Bosworth, Ch. J, and Hoffman and Woodruff, J. J.)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 21
Pages: 683–685

Head Matter:
The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, Appellants, v. The Board of Supervisors et al., Respondents.
The Court will not interfere by injunction to restrain the collection of a tax imposed upon an individual in respect of his personal property, upon allegations that it has been illegally imposed. An action will not lie for such a purpose.
(Before Bosworth, Ch. J, and Hoffman and Woodruff, J. J.)
Submitted, April 3;
decided, June 1, 1861.
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants on a demurrer to the complaint.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the Supervisors of the City and County of New York, and the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, and James Nesbit, a constable of the city. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were an insurance Company incorporated by the Laws of New Jersey, and having their office and all their property and evidences of debt there. That they employed agents in the State of Hew York, but all their agents here were merely ministerial officers to receive applications and transmit them to the plaintiffs in Hew Jersey, where all policies were signed, and to deliver the policies, and receive and remit to the plaintiffs the premiums. That the plaintiffs had no office except in Hew Jersey, and no money or capital invested in any manner in Hew York, except some loaned on bond and mortgage, the securities for which they kept in Hew Jersey, and some invested in State stocks, which stocks were all lodged with the Comptroller of this State pursuant to law.
It alleged further that the Supervisors had served upon them a bill for taxes on personal estate at Ho. 11 Wall street, valued at $100,000; that they had made application to the Supervisors, stating the foregoing facts, but the Supervisors had made no reply; and that they had received from the receiver of taxes a notice that a levy had been made on certain personal property belonging to them, to enforce the payment of the tax. It prayed an injunction restraining all the defendants from collecting the tax or selling plaintiffs’ property to pay it.
The defendants jointly demurred to the complaint, assigning as the.ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
On argument at Special Term before Mr. Justice Dude, judgment was ordered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court at General Term.
A. C. Bradley, for appellants.
A. R. Lawrence, for respondents.
To the same effect is a decision in a similar case between the same parties, brought in the Supreme Court. (33 Barb., 322 ; S. C., 20 How. Pr. R., 416.)

Opinion:
By the Court—Woodruff, J.
The question whether the Court will interfere by injunction to restrain the collection of a tax imposed upon an individual in respect of his personal property, upon allegations that it has been illegally imposed, was fully considered by me in the case of Wilson v. The Mayor, &c., of New York, (4 E. D. Smith, 675,) and the conclusion was adverse to the plaintiff. The same decision was made in this Court in The New York Life Insurance Company v. The Supervisors of New York, (4 Duer, 192,) and the views expressed by me in the former case were approved. I feel no disposition to open the discussion again; if I were to do so, I should content myself with citing Heywood v. The City of Buffalo, (14 N. Y. R., 534,) which is an express adjudication of the Court of Appeals to the same effect. An action will not lie for such a purpose.
The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.