Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/531

 FIKST NAT. BANK Oi CHICAGO V. PARWBLL. 61S �ing assessments it cannot be expected that the estimates of value placed by the assessors upon the property of indi- viduals, or of corporations, should always be the same, and the fact that there may have been differences in this respect will not authorize a party to corne into a court of equity and ask for an injunction to restrain the collection of taxes. It is also alleged in the bill what was the amount of the capital stock of the plaintiff, and of its surplus, and what was the aggre- gate fair cash value of its shares of stock on the first of May, 1880, and what was the assessment on such value aga-inst the plaintiff according to the mode of valuation adopted by the assessor; and the Bill then declares what was the capital of certain other banks, naming them, and that the assessment lipon those banks was not at the same rate as that made against the plaintiff. But there is no allegation what re- tums were made by those banks to the assessors, nor is there any statement that the assessors knew what was the value of the stock of those banks. So that it is quite possible the valuation nained in the bill by the assessor may have been the resuit of mistake or misapprehension, or of misinforma- tion. �The rule which seems to be established by the supreme court of the United States in cases of this cort is this : that it must appear in the act of the legislature it was the inten- tion of the statute to tax the shares of the capital stock of the national banks at a higher rate than other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals, or there must be some agree- ment or combination or rule established by the assessors, the necessary effect of which is to produce the same resuit. It may be admitted that it is difficult, under this rul'e, for a party to come into a federal court of equity and obtain an injunction against the collection of a tax. The inclination of the supreme court seems to be to discourage applications of this kind, as interferiug with the collection of funds which are necessary to carry on the government of the state. �In the case of The Germaii National Bank q/ Chicago v. Kim- hall, recently decided in the supreme court of the United States and not yet reported, it appears to be implied that ��� �