Case Name: JOSEPH RAWSON & COMPANY V. SCHOTT, TREASURER
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1897-01
Citations: 14 Ohio C.C. 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEPH RAWSON & COMPANY V. SCHOTT, TREASURER.
Judges: Before Smith, Swing and Cox., JJ.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of Ohio
Volume: 14
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
(First Circuit Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
January Term. 1897.)
Before Smith, Swing and Cox., JJ.
JOSEPH RAWSON & COMPANY V. SCHOTT, TREASURER.
In making additions to tax returns the board of review must act with reason and upon the evidence before them.
Appeal from the Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
The suit was to enjoin the collection of taxes on additions of $35,760 and $20,000, made to the plaintiff’s tax return for the year 1892, under the Rawlings Law, (sec. 2742, Rev. Stat.,) by the Board of Review, sitting as a Board of Equalization. The hearing belcw was on demurrer to the petition,which was.sustained by Judge Sayler,in an opinion holding the'law constitutional.

Opinion:
Swing, J.
We are of the opinion, that the injunction should be allowed. Plaintiffs by its allegations and proof, bring the case under the well settled rule of equity, that where the board acts from mere caprice or arbitrarily, a court of equity may grant relief. A court of equity would not interfere on a mere question of evidence, or the weight of evidence; all such matters are for the board to determine, and its action must be final as far as relief Iby injunction by a court of equity is concerned. But when the board acts without evidence, or arbitrarily, or from mere caprice, a court of equity can, and should,grant relief. In the case before us, the only evidence was that of Joseph Rawson,and the action of the board on the evidence, was not only not in accord with the evidence,but so manifestly contrary to it, that it is charitable to say that it is purely arbitrary, and such power was not intended to be exercised by the board.
Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, for Plaintiffs.
For cúter, Rencligs & Dinsmore,for Defendants.