on the ground that the tax is unfair or unjust, unless the fundamental law of the land has been violated.(v)

ON PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION. Where taxes are levied on property wholly exempt, their collection may be restrained.(w) But while courts of equity will, in many cases, enjoin the collection of a tax sought to be enforced against property exempt from taxation, yet they will not enjoin the collection of the whole tax, because, in determining the valuation of an aggregate property, exempt property may have been included as a factor.(x) Where the only ground of relief is a present use for religious and charitable purposes, a decree restraining the collection of taxes is erroneous. (y) So a school-house used and occupied for a boarding-school is not exempt.(2) When the board of equalization adds to the return of a tax-payer an item of property not taxable, and directs the county auditor to carry the amount so added on the duplicate, and assesses against it the rate of taxation paid for state, county, and city purposes, an injunction lies to enjoin the auditor. (a) When the board of equalization adds to the return of the tax-payer an item of property not taxable, and directs a person to carry the amount so added on the duplicate and assessment against it at the rate of taxation, injunction will lie to enjoin the auditor from so doing.* That land within the municipal corporation is used for agricultural purposes, and the owner derived no benefit from it, is no ground for an injunction.(b)

TAX ON PROPERTY OF ANOTHER. While it is a general rule that a court of equity will not interfere to restrain the collection of taxes, yet it will not refuse to restrain a tax collector by injunction, where the party against whom he is proceeding is not the tax debtor, and the property is not that on which the tax was laid; (c) especially where there is no remedy at law; as where the party taxed is insolvent and not ready to respond in damages. (d) Where a party not the owner or lessee of property, having no taxable interest therein, but who is merely in joint use with the owner for a compensation, is taxed for one-half of its value, the tax will be illegal and levied without warrant of law, and equity will enjoin its collection; (e) but where a railroad company, having the use of another road, agrees to advance money to the latter to pay the taxes, it cannot enjoin the collection of such taxes, which are proper and legal on the assumed ground of its ownership of the property.(ƒ) WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. A court may enjoin the collection of a tax, and will exercise its power in all cases where the tax has been levied

(v) Linton v. Mayor of Athens, 53 Ga. 588; Cleghorne v. Postlewaite, 43 Ill. 423; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424.

(w) Frost v. Flick, 1 Dak. 131; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McLean Co. 17 Ill. 391; Louisville & N. Co. v. Gaine, 3 Fed. Rep. 206; Village of Nunda v. Village of Chrystal Lake, 79 11. 311; Union Transp. Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 316; Town of Lemont v. Singer & Talcott Stone Co. 9 III. 94; Evans v. Gage, 1 Bradw. 202; Smith v. Osburn, 53 Iowa, 474; Washington Heights M. E. Church v. New York, 20 Hun, 27; Albany, etc., Min. Co. v. Aud. Gen. 37 Mich. :71; Kimball v. Merchants' Sav., L. & T. Co. 89 Ill. 611; State v. Ormsby Co.

7 Nev. 392; Morris, etc., Co. v. Jersey City, 1 Beas. 227.

(x) Huck v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 86 Ill. 352, (y) Beach v. Shoenmaker, 18 Kans. 147. (z) Red v. Johnson, 53 Tex. 284. (a) Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St. 474. (*) Jones v. Davis, 10 Reporter. 122. (b) Linton v. Mayor of Athens, 53 Ga. 588. (c) Seeley v. Westport, 47 Conn. 294. But see Waterbury Sav. Bank v. Lawler, 46 Conn. 243. (d) Deming v. Jones, 72 Ill. 78.

(e) Irwin v. N. O, St. L. & C. R. Co. 91 Ill. 105. (f) Archer v. Terre Haute & Ind. R. Co. 102 Ill. 493.

without authority of law;(g) or where the persons imposing it are not authorized by law;(h) or where the persons attempting to levy are not officers de jure or de facto, and unauthorized by law;(i) or where levied by persons authorized, but who transcend their authority,(j) and exceeded the amount authorized by law;(k) or where the tax was illegally assessed;(7) or assessed in conflict with the statute.(m) Injunction is the proper remedy to prevent the sale of real estate for taxes, the levying of which is prohibited by law.(n) Courts of chancery have jurisdiction to enjoin illegal taxes or assessments by counties, cities, or other tribunals, boards or officers, (o) and such jurisdiction is not taken away by the statute.(p) Justices' courts have authority to issue injunctions in all tax suits of which they have jurisdiction.(q) The amount of the tax in dispute is the criterion of jurisdiction. (r) A party seeking by injunction equitable relief against an alleged unauthorized action of the board of equalization, must establish clearly facts showing that the board had acted illegally and without authority.(s)

ILLEGAL TAXATION. A court of equity will not interfere on the sole ground that the statute imposing the tax is unconstitutional;(t) so where the only ground is that the statute annexing the lands taxed to the municipality which had levied the tax, was unconstitutional; for if the law was valid, the tax was good, and if void, the invalidity was apparent on the face of the assessment and could not cloud the title. Injunction will not lie where the defect is patent.(u) If the tax is illegal on the face of the proceedings, or totally void, and carries with it on the record notice of its illegality, no relief can be obtained in equity;(v) but where the assessment on the face of the proceedings is valid, and it requires extraneous evidence to show that it is invalid, equity will relieve to prevent a cloud on the title.(w) So a deed given by a

(g) Frost v. Flick, 1 Dak. 131; Wright v. S. W. Ry. Co. 64 Ga. 783; Kimball v. Merchants' Sav., L. & T. Co. 89 Ill 611; Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 I. 340; McClure v. Owen, 21 Iowa, 133; Webster v. Baltimore Co. 51 Md. 395; Marion Co. v. Barker, 25 Kan. 258.

(h) Albany, etc., Min. Co. v. Aud. Gen. 37 Mich. 391; Evans v. Gage, 1 Bradw. 202.

(1) Village of Nunda v. Village of Chrystal Lake, 79 II. 311; Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 346; Town of Lemont v. Singer & Talcott Stone Co. 98 Ill. 94; Albany, etc., Min. Co. v. Aud. Gen. 37 Mich. 391.

(j) South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo Co. 7 Neb. 253; Village of Nunda v. Village of Chrystal Lake, 79 Ill. 311.

(k) Town of Lemont v. Singer & Talcott Stone Co. 98 Ill. 94.

(1) Folkerts v. Powers, 42 Mich. 283; Frost v. Flick, 1 Dak. 131.

(m) Hassan v. City of Rochester, 67 N. Y. 528. (n) Mechanics' Bank v. City of Kansas, 73 Mo. 565.

(0) Little Rock v. Barton, 33 Ark. 436.

(p) Carrothers v. Clinton District, 16 West Va. 527.

(g) Gonzales v. Lindsay, 30 La. Ann. 1085.
(r) Adams v. Board of Com'rs, McCahon, 241.

(8) International & G. N. R. Co. v. Smith Co. 54 Tex. 1.

(t) Townsend v. New York City, 77 N. Y. 542. (u) Curtis v. East Saginaw, 35 Mich. 508; Townsend v. New York City, 77 N. Y. 542; Stewart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183.

(v) Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Peebles, 47 Ala. 317; Floyd v. Gilbreath, 27 Ark. 675; Robinson v. Gaar, 6 Cal. 273; Bucknall v. Story, 36 Cal. 67; Stewart v Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183; Cox v. Clift, 2 N. Y. 118; Scott v. Onderdonk, 14 N. Y. 9; Hatch v. Buffalo, 38 N. Y. 276; Newell v. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486; Livings. ton v. Hollenbeck, 4 Barb. 9; Van Rensselaer v. Kidd, Id. 17; Bonton v. Brooklyn, 15 Barb. 375; Messerole v. Brooklyn, 8 Paige, 198; Wiggins v. New York, 9 Paige, 16; Van Doren v. New York, Id. 388; Dean v. Madison, 9 Wis. 402; Head v. James, 13 Wis. 641; Shepardson v. Millwaukee, 28 Wis. 593; Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, 29 Wis. 51.

(w) Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181; Meth. Epis. Church v. New York, 27 Hun, 297; Temple Grove Seminary v. Cramer, 33 Hun, 398; Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; Coulson v. Portland, Deady, 481; Huntington v. Cent. Pac. R. Co.

public officer is an apparent cloud, requiring extraneous evidence to remove.(x) Such deed is presumptive evidence that all the statutory provisions have been complied with.(y) Whenever the claim of the adverse party to the land is valid upon its face, and it requires extrinsic evidence to establish its invalidity and illegality, the court will entertain jurisdiction in equity.(2)

TAXES IN PART ILLEGAL. Courts will not interfere with the collection of taxes unless they are void, or are levied without authority, (a) nor restrain an extension of a tax on the tax-books unless wholly unauthorized and void in all its parts;(b) and not then, unless the tax-payer has paid or tendered such taxes as are legal.(c) If a portion of a tax is legal and a portion illegal, if the legal can be separated from the illegal, an injunction will not be granted to restrain the collection of the entire tax;(d) but if they cannot be separated, a sale for the collection of such mixed taxes is void. (e) A bill against a sheriff alone, to enjoin the collection of county taxes, cannot be maintained on the allegation that the claims for which the taxes were levied were "in great part illegal."(ƒ) The payment of that portion which is legal, is a condition precedent to the right to maintain the suit.(g)

OMISSIONS FROM ASSESSMENT ROLL. Unlawful exemptions or omissions from the assessment rolls will invalidate the whole assessment.(h) Where assessors omitted from the assessment property benefited by the improvement, an action may be maintained by one or more persons assessed on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to restrain the enforcement and col

2 Sawy. 503; Shell v. Martin, 19 Ark. 189; Chaplin v. Holmes, 27 Ark. 414; Harmer v. Bohug, 8 Cal. 384; Webber v. San Francisco, 1 Cal. 455; Robinson v. Gaar, 6 Cal. 273; Cohen v. Sharp, 44 Cal. 29; Gage v. Rohrbach, 56 Ill. 262; Gage v. Billings, Id. 268; Reed v. Tyler, Id. 288; Gage v. Chapman, Id. 311; Barnett v. Cline, 60 111. 205; Reed v. Reber, 62 Ill. 240; Lee v. Ruggles, Id. 427; Harrison v. Haas, 25 Ind. 281; Lapp v. Morrill, 8 Kan. 678; Leigh v. Everhart, 4 T. B. Mon. 379; Conway v. Waverly, 15 Mich. 257; Palmer v. Rich, 12 Mich. 414; Scofield v. Lansing, 17 Mich. 437; Kenyon v. Duchene, 21 Mich. 498; Weller v. St. Paul, 5 Minn. 95; Morrison v. St. Paul, 9 Minn. 108; Lockwood v. St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Fowler v. St. Joseph, 37 Mo. 228; South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo Co. 7 Neb. 253; Morris Canal Co. v. Jersey City, 1 Beas. 227; Moers v. Smedley, 6 Johns. Ch. 28; Pettit v. Shephard, 5 Paige, 493; Oakley v. Trustees, 6 Paige, 262; Van Doren v. New York, 9 Paige, 388; Hanlon v. Supervisors, 57 Barb. 283; Scott v. Onderdonk, 14 N. Y. 9; Heywood v. Buffalo, Id. 534; Ward v. Dewey, 16 N. Y. 519; Hatch v. Buffalo, 38 N. Y. 276; Allen v. Buffalo, 39 N. Y. 336; Crooke v. Andrews, 40 N. Y. 547; Overing v. Foote, 43 N. Y. 290; Newell v. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486; Dean v. Madison, 9 Wis. 402; Weeks v. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 242; Jenkins v. Rock Co. 15 Wis. 11; Mitchell v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 92; Crane v. Janesville, 20 Wis. 305; Grimmer v. Sumner, 21 Wis. 179; Hamilton v. Fond du Lac, 25 Wis. 490; Siegel v. Outagamie Co. 26 Wis. 70; Judd v. Fox Lake, 28

Wis. 583; Shepardson v. Milwaukee, Id. 593; Weis v. Grosvenor, 31 Wis. 681.

(x) Beach v. Hayes, 58 How. Pr. 17. (y) Beach v. Hayes, 58 How. Pr. 17. (z) Lewis v. City of Buffalo, 1 Sheld. N. Y. Super. Ct. 80.

(a) Ottawa Glass Co. v. McCaleb, 81 Ill. 556. (b) Ottawa Glass Co. v. McCaleb, 81 I11. 556. (c) Ottawa Glass Co. v. McCaleb, 81 Ill. 556. (d) Burlington & Mo. Riv. R. Co. v. York Co. 7 Neb. 487; Mesker v. Koch, 76 Ind 68. (e) Shattuck v. Daniel, 52 Miss. 834. (f) Beck v. Allen, 53 Miss. 143.

(g) Twombly v. Kimbrough, 24 Ark. 459; Adams v. Castle, 30 Conn. 404; O'Kane v. Treat, 25 Ill. 557; Taylor v. Thompson, 42 Ill. 9; Briscoe v. Allison, 43 Ill. 291; Reed v. Taylor, 56 I11. 288; Barnett v. Cline, 60 111. 205; Harrison v. Haas, 25 Ind. 281; Roseberry v. Huff, 27 Ind. 12; Board of Com'rs v. Elston, 32 Ind. 271; Morrison v. Hershire, 32 Iowa, 271; Shelton v. Dunn, 6 Kan. 128; Conway v. Waverly, 15 Mich. 257; Palmer v. Napoleon, 16 Mich. 176; Frazer v. Siebern, 16 Ohio St. 614; Hersey v. Milwaukee, 16 Wis. 185; Bond v. Kenosha, 17 Wis. 234; Myrick v. La Crosse, Id. 442; Mills v. Johnson, Id. 598; Mills v. Charleston, 29 Wis. 400; Dean v. Borschsenius, 30 Wis. 236.

(h) New Orleans v. Fourchy, 30 La. Ann. 910; People v. McCrevy, 34 Cal. 32; Muscatine v. Railroad Co. 1 Dill. 542; Insurance Co. v. Yard, 17 Pa. 339; Morrison v. Larkin, 26 La. Ann. 702; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McLean Co. 17 Ill. 291.

lection of the same;(i) and the payment of part of the assessment will not prevent suit to restrain further prosecution.(j) Accidental omissions of property from the assessment roll, or omissions though purposely made under a mistake of law, and in the belief that the omitted property is not taxable, is no ground for enjoining the collection of the tax upon the property, which is assessed.(k) One whose assessment is increased by an unauthorized omission of lands of another, may maintain an action against the city to restrain the enforcement of the assessment;(7) but where the proof merely shows that in the assessment of property in the city there was an undervaluation in a few cases, it is not sufficient to vitiate the whole assessment.(m)

ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES. A court of equity will not interfere to correct an erroneous assessment and enjoin the collection of taxes thereon.(n) The remedy at law in such cases is deemed exclusive.(0) There will be no judicial interference on account of irregularities in the return or assessment;(p) as for a failure to return the assessment roll to the county clerk in time.(2) So a mere informality, which does not affect a substantial right, in no way invalidates the tax;(7) as in the mere form of the assessment,(s) or a misdescription or irregular entry in the tax list,(t) or the omission of an officer to do his duty.(u) But if the tax has been certified by mistake by the clerk to have been voted, when in fact the proposition was defeated, equity will restrain its collection. (v) A mere irregularity, either in making valuation or levying, will not vitiate unless it substantially affects the justice of the tax, (2) or unless fraudulently done, (x) or unless property is doubly taxed;(y) but the collection of taxes on the capital stock of corporations, over and above the value of its taxable property, will not be enjoined as double taxation,(z) or unless a party is denied a legal right, as the right to work out a poll tax;(a) but a failure of

(4) Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181; Kennedy v. City of Troy, 14 Hun, 308.

(j) Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181; Kennedy v. City of Troy, 14 Hun, 308.

(k) Burlington & Mo. Riv. R. Co. v. Saline Co. 12 Neb. 324; Burlington & Mo. Riv. R. Co. v. Seward Co. 10 Neb. 211.

(7) Hassen v. City of Rochester, 65 N. Y. 519; S. C. 6 Lans. 15.

(m) Marshall v. Benson, 48 Wis. 558.

(n) State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 613; Powers v. Bowman, 53 Iowa, 359; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Sidons, 88 111. 320; Burke v. Speer, 59 Ga. 353; Decker v. McGowan, 59 Ga. 805; Georgia Mut. L. Ass'n v. McGowan, Id. 811; Merchants' B. & L. Ass'n v. Peter, 63 Ga. 351; Thatcher v. People, 79 Ill. 597; Purrington v. People, 79 III. 11; Morrill v Douglass 17 Kans. 293; Beers v. People, 83 111. 488.

(0) Maclot v. Davenport, 17 Iowa, 379; Coulin v. Seaman, 22 Cal. 516; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75; Nolan v. Reese, 32 Cal. 484; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497; Windsor v. Field, 1 Conn. 279; Peoria v. Kidder, 26 III. 351; Deane v. Todd, 22 Mo. 90; Hughes v. Kline, 30 Pa. St. 280. See State v. Baxter, 36 N. J. L. 188; State v. Mayor, Id. 288.

(p) Burke v. Spear, 59 Ga. 353; Decker v. Mc

Gowan, 59 Ga. 805; Georgia M. L. Ass'n v. McGowan, Id. 811; Stockle v. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 615; State Cent. R. Co. v. Mutchler, 41 N. J. L. 96; Schofield v. Watkins, 22 III. 66; Chicago. B. & Q. R. Co. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34; Munson v. Minor, Id. 594; Metz v. Anderson, 23 Ill. 463; Du Page Co. v. Jenks, 65 111. 275.

(7) Burlington & Mo. Riv. R. Co. v. Saline Co. 12 Neb. 396.

(r) Burlington & Mo. Riv R. Co. v. Lancaster Co 12 Neb. 324; People v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 16 Hun, 196; State Cent. R. Co. v. Mutchier, 41 N. J. L. 96.

(8) State v. N. J. R. Co. 41 N. J. L. 235.
(t) George v. Dean, 47 Tex. 73.

(u) Matter of Pinckney, 29 Hun, 474; Burt v. Aud. Gen. 39 Mich. 126.

(v) Cattrell v. Lowry, 45 Iowa, 478.

(w) Law v. People, 87 111. 385; Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Osceola Co. 45 Iowa, 168. (r) Gage v. Evans, 90 111. 569.

(y) Union Trans. Co. v. Webber, 96 Ill. 346; Com. v. Sup's of Colby, 29 Pa. St. 121; Sav. & L. Soc. v. Austin, 46 Cal. 415.

(z) Danville Lumber, etc., Co. v. Parks, 88 111. 463.

(a) Miller v. Gorman, 38 Pa. St. 309; Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. v. Osceola Co. 45 Iowa, 168.

the road supervisors to give notice of the time when and place where the road tax will be worked out, does not invalidate the tax on the lands of a non-resident.(b) It must appear that equity alone can give redress, (c) and that the assessment is illegal and void as distinguished from irregular. (d)

REMEDY AT LAW. Equity will not restrain the collection of a tax when there is a full and adequate remedy at law, (e) even though fraud be alleged in the bill;(ƒ) and although the levy is on real estate, except in extreme cases.(g) The party seeking relief in equity must be without a legal remedy, or the remedy must be practically useless. (h) A court of equity will not enjoin a tax collector who threatens to seize personal property without lawful authority, as such seizure would be mere trespass, remediable in a court of law;(i) and if a defense in a tax suit is available at law, equity will not enjoin.(j) There is no remedy in equity when the state statute provides a remedy for illegal assessments;(k) and the fact that the remedy provided by statute may be inadequate, does not justify judicial interference, (7) as it is in the discretion of the legislature to provide the mode of assessment, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable in the courts. (m) Where a mode is prescribed, and a tribunal established by law to provide against an illegal tax, complainant has a full and adequate remedy at law.(n)

EXCESSIVE VALUATION. Excessive valuation alone will not be sufficient to warrant the interference of a court of equity.(0) Courts of equity cannot convert themselves into assessors for purposes of taxation and reassess in every case where the assessor has erred in his judgment as to the value of property, even if the tax-payer has notified the assessor that the true value is less than that fixed in the assessment, and the collection of the tax will not be enjoined merely because of an erroneous judgment in the valuation of property, or for a mistake in deducting the proper amount of exemptions where no fraud is shown.(p) When the inequality of valuation is the result of a statute of the state designed to discriminate injuriously against any class of persons or species of property, the court will grant appropriate relief.(g)

EXCESSIVE ASSESSMENTS. The collection of a tax will not be enjoined, although the assessment is alleged to be excessive of the amount authorized

(b) Burlington & Mo. Riv. R. Co. v. Lancaster Co. 4 Neb. 293.

(c) Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Siders, 88 111. 320. (d) City of Delphi v. Bowen, 61 Ind. 29; Bank v. Waters, 12 Reporter, 292.

(e) Hewitt's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 55; Brown v. Concord, 58 N. H. 375; Sav. Bank v. Portsmouth, 52 N. H. 17; Taylor v. Secor, U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. T. 1575; Hagenbuch v. Howard, 34 Mich. 1; Mears v. Howarth, 34 Mich. 138.

(f) Hagenbuch v. Howard, 34 Mich. 1.

(g) Rowland v. First School-dist. 42 Conn. 30. (h) Clarke v. Ganz, 21 Minn. 287.

(1) Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 298; Price v. Kramer, 4 Col. 546.

(j) Archer v. Terre Haute & Ind. R. Co. 102 111. 493.

(*) Heckman v. New York City, 29 Hun, 590; Green v. Mumford, 5 R. I.472; Woodward v. Ells

worth, 4 Col. 580; Magee v. Denton, 5 Blatchf. 130; Weaver v. State, 39 Ala. 535; Dodd v. Hartford, 25 Conn. 232; Missouri Riv. etc., R. Co v. Wheaton, 7 Kans. 232.

(1) Warren v. St. Paul, 4 Law & Eq. Rep. 556. (m) King v. Portland City, 2 Or. 146.

(n) Brewer v. Springfield, 97 Mass. 152; Brook. lyn v. Messerole, 26 Wend. 132; Woodward v. Ellsworth, 4 Col. 581; Meth. Epis. Church v. New York, 55 How. Pr. 57.

(0) Evans v. Gage, 1 Bradw. 202; Pacific Hotel Co. v. Lieb, 83 Ill. 602; Woodman v. Ely, 2 Fed. Rep. 839.

(p) Traders' Ins. Co. v. Farwell, 162 111. 13.

(4) People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539; Fulton v. Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 143; Cumming v. Nat. Bank, Id. 153; Nat. Bank v. Kimball, 2 Morr. Trans 463.