Case Name: FREMONT v. THE COUNTY OF MARIPOSA AND EARLY, Sheriff
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1858
Citations: 11 Cal. 361
Docket Number: 
Parties: FREMONT v. THE COUNTY OF MARIPOSA AND EARLY, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
FREMONT v. THE COUNTY OF MARIPOSA AND EARLY, Sheriff.
A taxpayer cannot enjoin the collection of the tax due the county, on the ground that he has, in former years, paid into the County Treasury taxes assessed on his property, which were illegally assessed and collected.
Appeal from the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Mariposa.
This was a bill filed by the plaintiff to restrain the collection of taxes by the Sheriff for the year 1856, upon the ground that taxes for the years 1851-2-3 and 4 had been illegally exacted of plaintiff and paid by him into the County Treasury; and that the county was insolvent. The bill prays that this amount (some $13,800) may be adjudged a debt against the county, and so much as necessary set off against the taxes assessed against the plaintiff for the year 1856, and a decree for the balance rendered in his favor. The defendants answered, denying generally that any illegal tax had been exacted of the plaintiff; and also, that the county was insolvent. There was no proof taken, the Court passing upon the motion for the injunction on bill and answer. The Court below granted the injunction and defendants appealed to this Court.
Wade & Flower for Appellants.
C. T. Botts for Respondent.

Opinion:
Baldwin, J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—
Field, J., concurring.
If the collection of the taxes of the plaintiff could be enjoined at all, it is clear that they could not be under the facts of this case.
If every taxpayer could interfere in this way to arrest the proceedings of the Tax Collector, upon the pretense that he held an unliquidated claim on. the county, it is evident that it would embarrass and confuse the whole fiscal system of the county. No apology could be given for such a proceeding, except that it was necessary to protect the plaintiff from what would otherwise be an irremediable evil. But this could not be, unless the county were shown to be insolvent. This has not been shown in this case; for, though the charge is made, it is denied, and there is no proof of it.
The order for granting the injunction is dissolved, and the cause remanded.