Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/437

 ALBANY CITY NAT. BANK V. MAHER. 425 �and was the same which h ad Leen followed ty the assessors for the city of Albany for many years, and -was followed gen- erally by assessors throughout the state. �Such being the facts, it must be assumed that the stock- holders of the complainant preferred, instead of contesting the justice or equity of the assessment by seeking to have it reviewed and corrected, to rely upon their strict legal rights. I do not mean to impugn the personal good faith of the stoekholders. Doubtless they believed that the law under which the assessment was made was in conflict with the a.ct of congress, and that any assessment would be vbid for the reasons urged as the first ground for an injunction. But, as has been shown, that ground was not tenable, and if the stoekholders were now seeking aid in equity because the assessors failed to give them the notice of the assesssment i-equired by law, they would be defeated upon the ground that as they were not in fact misled, and not unjustly as- sessed, they should be held to their strict legal rights, and not entitled to the intervention of a court of equity, They would, therefore, be relegated to their remedy at law. �But the rights of the complainant rest upon another foot- ing. It is required, as has been stated, to withhold dividends from its shareholders to such estent as may be necessary to pay any taxes assessed against them. Some of its share- holders appeared before the board of assessors and were relieved from assessment. Many other shareholders did not attempt to be relieved, but now fall back upon their right to insist that the tax is illegal, and refuse to permit the com- plainant to retain their dividends. The complainant is thus exposed to a paultiplicity of suits by these stoekholders. If it pays over the dividends, the shares of many of its stoek- holders may be seized and exposed to sale. If the complain- ant transfers the stock to purchasers, it does so at the peril of maintaining the legality of the sale. On the other hand, if it refuses to pay the dividends to the shareholders, and re- sists their suits, the burden and expense of the litigation will fall upon those stoekholders who have been relieved of their assessments as well as upon the others, The case, therefcore, ��� �