Court Opinion

ID: 5583882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 01:47:44.105211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:10.238415
License: Public Domain

Beck, P. J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance in this case; though I doubt whether the provision in the act of 1918, declaring when the alleged delinquent taxpayer may resort to equity, is applicable under the facts of the record. The petition in the present case is supplementary to the former original petition in *876which the petitioners sought to show that the proceedings before the arbitrators were illegal for certain specified reasons. Among the reasons specified, there was no claim that under the act of 1918 the arbitrators in this case could not entertain an appeal from the assessment made by the tax-receiver. But construing that original petition as a whole, it recognized the right of the taxpayer to have arbitration. Furthermore, the complainants participated in the arbitration, and can not now raise objections to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, based upon the act of 1918, after having in their original petition recognized that the arbitrators would have had jurisdiction but for the reasons there pointed out. I also concur in the judgment of affirmance on the ground that equity will not afford the relief here sought, as the petitioners have a statutory remedy as pointed out above, even if the act of 1918 is applicable to this ease.