Court Opinion

ID: 9306699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:17:37.168391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:56.540052
License: Public Domain

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
My consideration of this case has been greatly facilitated by the thorough and able arguments which have been presented by counsel; but it is not necessary to enter upon a discussion of the several questions to which they have been directed. A brief statement of the conclusions which have been reached will suffice to indicate, with reference to the stipulation filed, the grounds of the decision now to be made.
1. The Adams Express Company is not a corporation. Consequently — First, it is not subject to the tax in question; and, second, the defendant, in making the settlement against that company, did not act by authority of the state of Pennsylvania, and therefore this suit is not, in effect, against that state, but is one to which the judicial power of the United States extends.
2. It is undoubtedly true that the federal courts should be extremely cautious in interfering with the collection of the revenues of the several states; but this bill is not aimed at the collection of current revenue, but of back taxes covering a period of 20 years; and this settlement, if not itself a presently existing cloud upon title to real estate, is certainly a potential threat to create one, which is not effectually withdrawn by the allegation that this defendant does not propose to pursue it. In Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688, the Lord Chancellor (Loughborough) said: “I never ask more upon an application for an injunction than that a surveyor has been sent to mark out trees. I do not wait until they are cut down.” This de*633fendant asserts a right to create a lien, and has done all that is necessary to enable him, or his successor in office, to do so under color of the right asserted. This is sufficient ground for apprehending that the power (which unquestionably exists) to cloud the plaintiffs’ title will be exercised; and the "naked and unsupported” promise of the defendant that he will, refrain from exercising that power does not defeat the right of the plaintiffs to have its exercise prohibited. Celluloid Manuf’g Co. v. Arlington Manuf’g Co., ,34 Fed. Rep. 324. The first step towards the creation of a lien having been taken, the jurisdiction in equity then attached, and cannot now be divested by the averment of the defendant that he does not intend to proceed further in that direction; and if it be assumed that equity would interpose primarily only to prevent the perfection of the apprehended lien, yet, having acquired jurisdiction for that purpose, the court should not hesitate to strike at the root of the wrong by annulling the unlawful preliminary procedure by which the completed injury has been rendered possible. Therefore, and irrespective of the other grounds which hare been urged with much force, I am of opinion that this suit is within the equitable jurisdiction of this court.
The complainants are entitled to relief in accordance with the stipulation filed, for which a decree may be prepared arid, if requisite, he submitted for settlement.