Bank v. Dodge, 197 U. S. 110, 111, 49 L. Ed. 686, 687, 25 Sup. Ct. 384, majority holding taxation of national bank shares at market value under Cal. Pol. Code, §§ 3608-3610, is discriminatory in view of exclusion of intangible elements of value in assessing State banks; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 549, 21 L. Ed. 232, dismissing bill where sole ground of suit was the illegality of a tax; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 613, 23 L. Ed. 673, and Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 594, 35 L. Ed. 275, 11 Sup. Ct. 647, dismissing bills to enjoin tax on ground of its unconstitutionality; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 526, 28 L. Ed. 1102, 5 Sup. Ct. 605, holding that multiplicity of suits and title to real estate were involved and jurisdiction attached; Milwaukee v. Koeffler, 116 U. S. 222, 224, 29 L. Ed. 613, 614, 6 Sup. Ct. 373, 374, holding suit to restrain collection of personal tax on ground of nonresidence not maintainable; Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 U. S. 237, 239, 42 L. Ed. 451, 452, 18 Sup. Ct. 103, 104, where there were several grounds for equitable relief in suit to restrain collection of illegal tax; Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 612, 42 L. Ed. 600, 18 Sup. Ct. 217, extending jurisdiction where land was to be assessed to locate and improve a park under statute alleged to be void; Pittsburgh etc. Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 37, 38, 39, 43 L. Ed. 356, 19 Sup. Ct. 92, 93, refusing to enjoin where party had neglected available legal remedy; Albany etc. Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. 182, 6 Fed. 424, holding bank might maintain bill to restrain collection of tax to prevent multiplicity of suits, though remedy was not open to stockholders; Union etc. Bank v. Chicago, 3 Biss. 88, 89, Fed. Cas. 14,374, and City Nat. Bank etc. v. Paducah, 2 Flipp: 62, 65, Fed. Cas. 2743, taking jurisdiction of bills to prevent multiplicity of suits; Trask v. Maguire, 2 Dill. 184, Fed. Cas. 14,145, holding no ground for equitable interference with tax on railroad property; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Lincoln County, 2 Dill. 281, Fed. Cas. 14,379, refusing equitable relief from tax on omitted property; Huntington v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 2 Sawy. 514, Fed. Cas. 6911, and Tilton v. Oregon etc. R. R. Co., 3 Sawy. 25, Fed. Cas. 14,055, enjoining tax where assessment was void and cloud would be cast upon title to real estate; Forbes v. Gracey, 9 Fed. Cas. 402, holding stockholder may sue to restrain collection of illegal tax where corporation refuses; Jessup v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. Cas. 575, sustaining bill where assessment by board was entirely erroneous; Second Nat. Bank v. Caldwell, 13 Fed. 433, holding tax illegal but refusing equitable relief; Schulenberg-Boeckeler Lumber Co. v. Hayward, 20 Fed. 425, dismissing bill alleging unjust assessment and seeking to enjoin; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 313, allowing bill where there could be no adequate remedy at law if tax were illegal; Powder River Cattle Co. v. Board of Commrs. of Custer County, 45 Fed. 330, holding

case founded on irregular assessment properly brought in court of law; California etc. Land Co. v. Gowen, 48 Fed. 774, granting jurisdiction where tax if enforced would cast cloud upon title of plaintiff; Gregg v. Sanford, 65 Fed. 157, 12 C. C. A. 525, holding similarly as to State tax illegally imposed upon joint-stock company in Pennsylvania; Robinson v. Wilmington, 65 Fed. 858, 13 C. C. A. 177, denying jurisdiction to correct error in assessment of bank shares; Linehan Ry. Transfer Co. v. Pendergrass, 70 Fed. 2, 16 C. C. A. 585, holding Federal court would not enjoin collection of tax which was only a personal charge; Preston v. Finley, 72 Fed. 854, refusing to enjoin occupation tax; Brown v. French, 80 Fed. 169, enjoining sale to enforce payment of illegal tax under law making sale a cloud on real estate; Taylor v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co., 88 Fed. 357, 358, 31 C. C. A. 537, granting jurisdiction where complainant to have vindicated rights would have been compelled to bring thirty-five suits at law; Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 88 Fed. 390, allowing bill where under State statute there was no adequate remedy at law to recover back illegal taxes; Mayor etc. of Mobile v. Baldwin, 57 Ala. 72, 29 Am. Rep. 718, holding illegal tax on personalty afforded no ground for equitable interference; Floyd v. Gilbreath, 27 Ark. 688, holding adequate remedy at law existed to recover for over-assessment; Savings & Loan Society v. Austin, 46 Cal. 488, holding, if tax on bank were illegal, court could not interfere by injunction; Insurance Co. of North America v. Bonner, 24 Colo. 223, 49 Pac. 367 (affirming 7 Colo. App. 101, 42 Pac. 682), holding bill to enjoin, etc., insufficient even if tax were void; Wason v. Major, 10 Colo. App. 184, 50 Pac. 742, holding that legality and all other matters affecting assessment could have been tested at law; Murphy v. Wilmington, 6 Houst. 137, 22 Am. St. Rep. 354, holding no grounds existed for enjoining collection of tax to construct sewer; Lewton v. Hower, 18 Fla. 877, holding levy and sale cast such a cloud upon title to land exempt by law as to authorize injunction; Carlton v. Newman, 77 Me. 410, 1 Atl. 195, sustaining bill to enjoin collection of illegal school district tax to prevent multiplicity of suits; Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich. 409, 20 Am. Rep. 655, holding collection of personal liquor tax, conceding it to be illegal, could not be enjoined; Laird, Norton & Co. v. County of Pine, 72 Minn. 414, 75 N. W. 724, holding similarly as to personal tax on lumber; McDonald v. Murphree, 45 Miss. 711, dismissing bill seeking to enjoin tax levied in aid of railroad; Irwin v. Lewis, 50 Miss. 368, enjoining sheriff's sale where complainant was entitled to homestead exemption; Mobile etc. R. R. Co. v. Moseley, 52 Miss. 137, sustaining jurisdiction to prevent levy and sale of rolling stock; Northern etc. R. R. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 190, 3 Pac. 157, reviewing whole subject and allowing bill seeking to enjoin tax upon railroad and rolling stock; Wells, Fargo & Co. v.

ROSE

Dayton, 11 Nev. 168, dismissing bill brought to enjoin illegal assessment; Liebstein v. Mayor etc., 24 N. J. Eq. 204, refusing equitable relief where assessments were made and improvements paid for by city; Farrington v. New England etc. Co., 1 N. D. 118, 45 N. W. 196, applying rule where enforcement of tax void for want of assessment would have cast a cloud on title; Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 N. D. 324, 51 N. W. 387, sustaining jurisdiction where tax sale would have created cloud upon title to land described in certificate; Kinney v. Zimpleman, 36 Tex. 571, holding if school tax were illegal, complainant had remedy at law; Oregon Short Line etc. Ry. Co. v. Standing, 10 'Utah, 459, 37 Pac. 688, dismissing bill brought to enjoin county poor tax on ground of illegality; Douglass v. Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 166, 168, 27 Am. Rep. 550, 551, holding that there was remedy at law to recover for illegal assessment to build sidewalk; Corrothers v. Board of Education, 16 W. Va. 541, holding bill to enjoin school tax showed no equity; Williams v. County Court, 26 W. Va. 493, 498, 53 Am. Rep. 95, dismissing bill to enjoin illegal dog tax on ground that necessary parties were not joined to prevent multiplicity of suits; Wilson v. Philippi, 39 W. Va. 79, 19 S. E. 554, dismissing bill complaining of sidewalk assessment; Judd v. Fox Lake, 28 Wis. 588, refusing to enjoin town officers from assessing tax on ground of its illegality; Muncey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 414, holding party guilty of laches in objecting to ditching assessment; Butler v. Ellerbe, 44 S. C. 259, 22 S. E. 428, dismissing petition seeking to enjoin payment of registration warrants by State officers; Sharpleigh v. Surdam, 1 Flipp. 473, Fed. Cas. 12,711, holding court of equity will inquire into validity of tax sale which defendant holds over owner in possession as a cloud; Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 435, 14 Pac. 83, holding equity could not relieve for fraud and irregularities in expending taxes being collected for street improvement; dissenting opinion in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 157 U. S. 611, 39 L. Ed. 830, 15 Sup. Ct. 701, majority holding stockholder might maintain bill to restrain corporation from voluntarily paying tax claimed to be illegal; dissenting opinion in Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 17 Fed. 178, majority holding it proper case for equity cognizance on account of threatened injury; dissenting opinion in Floyd v. Gilbreath, 27 Ark. 697, majority holding adequate remedy at law existed to recover for over-assessment; dissenting opinion in Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 157, 33 S. W. 515, majority granting relief from tax for unauthorized street work.

Limited in Delphi v. Bowen, 61 Ind. 38, holding that in Indiana injunction will lie to restrain collection of an illegal tax.

Distinguished in Central Pac. Ry. v. Evans, 111 Fed. 73, enjoining assessment of property in manner unauthorized by law; Buchanan v. Macfarland, 31 App. D. C. 14, 15, holding equity will review sale made

under tax assessment where claim is made that certificate was obtained fraudulently; Craighill v. Van Riswick, 8 App. D. C. 207, 226, holding equity will consider complaint of property owner against assessment for public park; Gray v. Foster, 46 Ind. App. 153, 92 N. E. 9, allowing suit by one in behalf of a number to test validity of assessment; dissenting opinion in State v. Wood, 155 Mo. 470, 482, 56 S. W. 485, 489, majority holding mere allegation of irreparable injury insufficient.

Injunction to restrain collection of tax. Note, 23 Am. Rep. 623. Injunction to restrain collection of illegal tax. Note, 53 Am. Rep. 110, 111, 112.

Injunction to restrain collection of taxes and assessments. Note,
69 Am. Dec. 199.

Right of individual to enjoin act of public officials. Note, 3 Ann.
Cas. 1014.

Injunction against collection of illegal taxes. Note, 22 L. R. A.
699, 700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 708.

It is of utmost importance that means adopted to enforce taxation should be interfered with as little as possible by courts.

Approved in Cheatham v. United States, 92 U. S. 89, 23 L. Ed. 563, holding party suing to recover tax barred by long delay in paying it; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 614, 23 L. Ed. 673, dismissing bill to enjoin tax on ground of its unconstitutionality; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 314, holding suit to restrain collection of tax cognizable in equity, there being no adequate remedy at law; Richmond etc. R. R. Co. v. Blake, 49 Fed. 905, ordering taxes, previously tendered and refused, paid into court; Tallassee Mfg. Co. v. Spigener, 49 Ala. 264, holding taxes properly assessed should have been paid before 'seeking relief; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Lott, 54 Ala. 507, discussing taxable assets of company, but refusing to interfere with collection of tax; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Dayton, 11 Nev. 168, dismissing bill seeking to enjoin collection of tax on ground of over-valuation; dissenting opinion in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan etc. Co., 157 U. S. 610, 611, 39 L. Ed. 829, 830, 15 Sup. Ct. 701, majority holding income tax unconstitutional in suit by stockholder against corporation to restrain payment of tax.

Equity jurisdiction has sometimes been extended to restrain collection of illegal tax where parties voluntarily submitted themselves to it. Approved in Williams v. County Court, 26 W. Va. 530, dismissing bill for want of equity, which sought to restrain dog tax as illegal.

Party from whom illegal tax is collected has ample remedy at law, unless he would be compelled to resort to multiplicity of suits, or would suffer irreparable injury.

Approved in People's Nat. Bank v. Marye, 107 Fed. 575, denying suit to enjoin State officers from levying taxes on ground that statute discriminative and invalid as against United States laws; Dumars v. City of Denver, 16 Colo. App. 379, 65 Pac. 582, entertaining jurisdiction enjoining city and officials from enforcing void assessment against property of complainants and others similarly situated; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Dayton, 11 Nev. 170, dismissing bill seeking to enjoin collection of unjust tax.

Where decree dismissing original bill disposes of controversy between parties, cross-bill falls with it.

Approved in Day v. Bullen, 226 Ill. 81, 80 N. E. 743, following rule; United States v. California etc. Land Co., 192 U. S. 360, 48 L. Ed. 476, 24 Sup. Ct. 268, holding dismissal because of judgment estoppel of bill by government to avoid patents on ground that lands were within reservation carries cross-bill seeking to enjoin allotments; Pacific Whaling Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 452, 47 L. Ed. 255, 23 Sup. Ct. 156, denying appeal where appellant's application for license granted and protest coupled therewith denied; Gilmore v. Bort, 134 Fed. 662, in suit for cancellation of bond given to indemnify corporation and its treasurer, cross-bill by treasurer setting up validity of bond and praying for release on his own bond if it is valid does not entitle treasurer to object to dismissal of suit; Glos v. People, 259 Ill. 348, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 119, 102 N. E. 769, holding where cross-bill does not take form of original bill, it falls with dismissal of bill; Spies v. Arvondale etc. R. Co., 60 W. Va. 394, 55 S. E. 466, holding where bill is dismissed, answer praying affirmative relief will be dismissed; Industrial etc. Guaranty Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 58 Fed. 742, 7 C. C. A. 471, holding cross-bill dissolved where original bill was dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 235, 238, holding that no final decree could be entered on cross-bill while motion to dismiss original bill was pending; Gilmer v. Felhour, 45 Miss. 631, holding cross-bill being purely of legal character, should have been dismissed with original bill; Alleman v. Knight & Bro., 19 W. Va. 219, holding court erred in ordering answer to be filed as cross-bill, and dismissing case without prejudice; Bound v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 33, arguendo.

Distinguished in Lacher v. Manley, 139 Ga. 803, 78 S. E. 189, holding where cross-bill contains facts germane to petition and prays affirmative relief, sustaining of demurrer to original bill does not defeat crossbill; Barnard v. Hartford, 2 Fed. Cas. 836, holding where cross-bill sets up additional facts complainant is entitled to independent relief.

State tax on national banks. Note, 45 L. R. A. 763.

VII-15