Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/435

 ALBANT CITY NAT. BANK V. MAHBB. 423 �tection of the tax payer and the preservation of his rights, is a condition precedent to the legality and validity of the tax; Westfall V. Preston, 49 N. Y. 349; Clark v. Norton, M. 243, �■Where, as was the case here, the formai roU whieh is pre- sented for the inspection of the tax payera contains no evi- dence of an assessment against an individual, he has a right to assume that there is no assessment against him. Neither legal duty nor cotumon sense requires him to institute further inquiries. He has a right to assume that the assessors have complied with the law, and that their roU is the colnplete exhibit of their officiai action. Ha is not to suppose that a separate list unknown to the law has been regarded by the assessots as constnictively a part of the roU, when in fact it is not a con- stituent part of it. Praetically, as well as theoretically, to permit such a list to be regarded as the assessment roll would be dangerous, and liable to mislead the tax payers and deprive them of the opportunity to obtain a revision of their assess- ments. �It will not do to say that it should be sufficient as to a par- ticular tax payer when brought to his knowledge. As matter of law, either the list is part of the roll or it is not. If it is not, it cannot be made so by extrinsic circumstances. �I am therefore constrained to hold that the assessment against the shareholders of the complaina'nt was not merely invalid for irregularity, but void, because the assessors failed to observe a^ condition precedent to their right to assess. And this conclusion must resuit in granting the injunction asked for. In order, however, that there may be no misap- prehension as to the views which lead to this resuit, it is proper to say that the right of the complainant to the relief stands on s, very different footing from that of the several stockholders who have been assessed. If these stockholders were complainants there would be two sufficient reasons for denying them the aid of a court of eqity and the preventive remedy of an injunction. Courts of equity are always reluc- tant to interfere with the collection of state taxes by the officers entrusted with that duty, and have almost uniformly ��� �